ATLANTA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. Vs. NEGOLICE INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint under sec. 12(i)(a) read with sec. 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeks possession of an apartment booked by the complainant with the opposite party no. 1 in his project with compensation on grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

(2.) Briefly put, the facts, as stated by the complainant are that it had booked a flat in opposite party no. 1's project Victoria Garden, Model Town, Delhi in October 2006 for the use of its visiting executives by depositing Rs.10,43,654.00. Vide provisional allotment dtd. 6/11/2006 flat no. E 802 was allotted to him under a Construction Linked Payment Plan with an assurance to complete construction within 36 months with grace period of 6 months. The complainant states that while he paid another installment in December 2006, the Apartment Buyers Agreement (in short, "Agreement") was not executed while other demands for payments kept on being raised. The Agreement received from opposite party no 1 vide letter dtd. 9/3/2007 was signed and sent on 24/3/2007. However, a signed copy was not received back by the complainant for which several follow up efforts were made to no avail. On 27/9/2007 a final notice was received for payment of dues with interest within 10 days. Despite the complainant asking for the signed copy of the Agreement in November 2007, opposite party cancelled the allotment vide letter dtd. 14/1/2008 on the ground of default in payment and sent a cheque for Rs.6,41,010.00 as refund after forfeiting the earnest money. On the complainant taking up the matter with opposite party no. 1, this cancellation was agreed to be revoked; however, no letter was issued. Complainant returned the cheque for refund which was resent by the opposite party on 18/3/2008. As several efforts to resolve the issue did not fructify, the complainant issued a legal notice on 13/8/2008 to the opposite party no. 1. In response it was conveyed on 15/9/2008 that the allotment stood cancelled. The cheque for refund was again enclosed and it was admitted that the Agreement had not been furnished to the complainant.

(3.) The complainant states on the basis of information obtained through the Right to Information Act (RTI) that the opposite party had applied for clearances pertaining to fire, water and sewage clearances that were essential for a building plan sanction only in May 2007, that environment clearance was given in May 2007 and sanctioned plans were obtained only in February 2008. However, as per information on the website of Delhi Pollution Control Committee, the Consent to Establish was not available with the opposite party on 11/12/2008. Despite such a situation, the opposite party had stated while issuing provisional allotment that construction would commence in two months which was a mis-representation. The land area available was also wrongly shown as 8 acres when only 4.5 acres was available. It was assured that 7 towers of 11 floors each would be constructed; however, the complainant states that 20 floors are being constructed per tower. It is also contended that while Rs.5,590.00 per sft has been charged from him by opposite party no.1, allotments to others is at Rs.3,500.00 per sft. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant is before us with the prayer to: