D.C.M. LTD. Vs. GIRISH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT is a Hindu Undivided Family. The respondent, through its karta filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Kashmiri Gate, Delhi that the complainant booked a flat in the development project of 'DCM Techno Plaza" undertaken by the petitioner opposite party on payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- vide receipt dated 27.12.1991. An allotment letter was issued in favour of the complainant. Pursuant to the said booking, an agreement to sale was entered into between the parties on 16.1.1997. As per the agreement, the petitioner opposite party had agreed to deliver the possession of the flat within five years i.e. latest by 15.01.2002 and in the event of failure to do so, the opposite party was required to refund the booking amount alongwith 12% interest thereon. According to the complainant, the petitioner opposite party failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period of five years. Therefore, complainant vide notice dated 25.06.2002 called upon the petitioner opposite party to refund the booking amount together with interest. The opposite party, however, failed to comply with the demand notice. Ultimately, because of the stubborn attitude of the opposite party and also under the pressure of uncertainity and the harassment at the hand of the opposite party, the complainant transferred his booking to M/s. Atlantic Commercial Company Limited at the behest of the opposite party. It is claimed by the complainant that M/s. Atlantic Commercial Company Limited is owned by the opposite party company and the said two companies are interconnected by the commonness of directors. The complainant after surrendering his interest to M/s. Atlantic Commercial Company Limited served notice to the opposite party to pay 12% interest on the deposited amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in terms of clause 19 of the agreement between the parties but the opposite party failed to comply with the notice. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a consumer complaint.

(2.) THE petitioner opposite party resisted the complaint by filing written statement. According to the petitioner, complaint is not maintainable because there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioner and also because the complainant after having transferred his interest in the subject flat to M/s. Atlantic Commercial Company Limited is estopped from raising any claim whatsoever for interest on the deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/ -.

(3.) BEING aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The State Commission vide the impugned order concurred with the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.