SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS PVT. LTD. Vs. NEETA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal against impugned order dated 09.09.2014 passed by State Commission, Delhi (for short, 'State Commission') in Complaint Case No.149 of 2012, vide which consumer complaint filed by Respondent/Complainant has been allowed.

(2.) Brief facts are, that Respondent filed complaint under Section 12 read with Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') for refund of the amount deposited, compensation for harassment and costs of litigation against appellant on the allegations, that she and her husband Sh. R.K. Aggarwal had booked four plots with appellant in the year 2006, under the scheme NRI City Rudrapur Project and deposited a sum of Rs. 23,97,984/-. Later on, it was found that there was no such project being developed by the appellant and she was cheated. However, on the advice of the appellant, respondent opted for another scheme in lieu of previous scheme as they had been left with no option. Accordingly, appellant allotted Rose Villa No.B-79, measuring 115 sq. Mts. Samia NRI Lake City Rudrapur, Uttrakhand under the construction linked plan. The total cost of the villa was Rs. 26 Lac and the amount already deposited by the respondent was to be adjusted in the cost of the villa. But instead of adjusting the entire amount of Rs. 23,97,984/-, appellant adjusted only a sum of Rs. 23,37,786/-. Appellant vide letter dated 01.11.2011 further demanded balance cost of Rs. 3,69,566/- for villa No.B-79. The respondents paid a sum of Rs. 3,69,566/- towards the balance cost of the villa through receipt nos. 1064,1065 and 8618. Even after making full payment towards cost of the villa, appellant did not hand over the possession of the allotted villa in its NRI Lake City Rudrapur Uttrakhand Project. Respondent ran from pillar to post to get possession of the aforesaid villa but in vain. In the process, respondent visited office of the appellant on 23.01.2012 and was surprised to know, that allotted villa No.B-79 Samia NRI Lake City Rudrapur, Uttrakhand was sold to some other person. Respondent sent a notice dated 07.02.2012 through her advocate but appellant failed to comply with the demand in her notice and failed to make refund. Thus, service provided by the appellant company were not only deficient but also amounted to indulgence in unfair trade practice. The respondent is not only entitled for refund of Rs. 27,67,550/- but also interest on this amount @ 18% p.a. from January, 2007 which comes to Rs.25,80,000/-. The respondents further claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lacs for harassment. Respondents were thus entitled for payment of Rs. 56,47,550/- from the appellant.

(3.) In its reply, appellant has stated that no allotment agreement was executed between them and the respondent. Further, appellant categorically denies having received a sum of Rs. 23,97,984/- alleged to have been deposited by the respondent in the year 2006-2007. However, it is stated by the appellant that it is not liable to make any payment as alleged, rather respondent has not complied the terms of the contract as desired by the appellant.