SHIKHA GUPTA Vs. SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

(2.) Facts in brief are that Smt. Shikha Gupta and Smt. Nidhi Gupta daughters of Mr. Satish Sarup Gupta entered into an agreement through their father with M/s. Skipper Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 3.2.82 for the purchase of residential flat No.3 in the Residential Housing Complex Building at 10 Jamuna Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, comprising covered area of approximately 1050 sq. ft. on the ground floor at the rate of Rs.275/- per sq. ft. The address of the complainants at that time was 25, South 6th Floor Riviera Apartment, Mall Road, Delhi but have since shifted to B-8, 9 Raj Narain Road, Civil Lines, Delhi-54. Payment of Rs.21,000/- was made through two cheques Nos.316436 and 317544 dated 10.8.81 for Rs.10,500/-each cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank Chandni Chowk Branch which were given to the respondent Company's Director in the presence of one Shri R. D. Bansal and Shri Nand Kishore Bansal prior to the agreement. This payment has been acknowledged by the respondent company vide their receipt dated 13.8.1981, Rs.1 lakh is alleged to have been given in cash by Shri Rajindra Kumar Gupta, a friend of the complainant's father on 10.8.81 to the respondent Co. for which no receipt was given by them. The construction of the said flats was to be completed in 18 months from the date of start of construction, as mentioned in the agreement, it was also mentioned therein that further 10% amount will be taken on completion of the lower ground floor roof slab. Two more cheques of Rs.18,375/- each dated 3.2.82 were given to the respondent which was acknowledged on 18.2.82. Thus, there is no dispute about payment of Rs.57,750/-.

(3.) Originally flat No.3 was allotted to the complainant which was unilaterally changed by the respondent and as per their letter of 22.3.93 changed it to flat No.21, for which written consent of the complainants were not taken. Thereafter there were two communications from the respondent company in which it was admitted by the latter that the flats were ready for occupation but possession could not be given since completion certificate had not been received from M. C. D. In yet a subsequent letter the above fact was reiterated and when the father of complainants visited the respondent company's office, he was asked to deposit more cash, on being asked for the receipt in respect of the earlier cash deposited, he was told that receipt would be issued later on The father of the complainant refused to pay any further cash unless a receipt was issued for the Rs.1 lakh paid earlier in cash. Thereafter, there was no communication from the respondent Co.