Anjali Gupta vs K.M.Enterprises

THIS complaint has been filed by Mrs. Anjali Gupta r/o 4/32-A, Punjabi Bagh East, New Delhi against respondents M/s. K.M. Enterprises, Mr. H.N. Kumra, both residents of K-l, Kailash Colony and Shri M. Ramchandani of Ramchandani Properties (P) Ltd., C-197, Greater Kailash, New Delhi.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant, after going through an advertisement in Hindustan Times in May 1989 booked an a partment consisting of 800 sq.ft. and one shop measuring 10'' x 10'' in the multistoreyed complex to be constructed in village Lado Sarai, Delhi. THE booking for the above space for the shop and the apartment was done as per terms and conditions in Annexure-B attached with the complaint. THE cost for the shop was settled at Rs. 1,350/- per sq.ft. totalling Rs. l,35,000/- and for the apartment at Rs. 450/- per sq.ft. (totalling Rs. 3,60,000/-). The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/. vide receipt No. 108 dt. 4.6.89. She paid another amount of Rs. 40,000/- vide receipt No. 110 dt. 20.6.89. Both these payments were made through cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank. The complainant further paid an amount of Rs. 49,000/- vide receipt No. 133 dt. 4.9.89, which was also made through a cheque drawn on Punjab National Bank and the copy of receipt is Annexure- G on record. Thereby the complainant made the total payment of Rs. 99,000/- to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 upto 4.9.89.

In January'' 90 the complainant came to know that no progress had been made in the construction of the building in question and that there was no chance that the possession of apartment and the shop be given to her within the period of 15 months as promised. She contacted Mr. H.N. Kumra on 1.2.90 to refund the amount of Rs. 99,000/-. Mr. Kumra verbally promised to refund the amount. He, however, dragged his feet and did not refund the amount. On 27.3.91, the complainant sent a registered letter to the respondent firm. The letter was received back un-delivered. She, therefore, made telephone call to Mr. H.N. Kumra but she was told that Mr. Kumra was not available. Subsequently, on 16.4.91 she sent another letter enclosing a copy of the earlier letter dt. 27.3.91. This letter was addressed to the respondent No. 1 C/o M/s. Ramchandani Properties (P) Ltd. and the same was duly received. The complainant again sent a registered letter to the respondent on 6.1.92 and the receipt of the same was confirmed by the postal authorities.

SHE pleaded that the building in question has not yet completed, though a period of 3 years has lapsed. In view of the breach of the contract by the firm and their non-adherence to the time schedule and the dilatory tactics for making refund of the due amount paid to her. SHE has been forced to file the complaint. The complainant has prayed that the principal amount of Rs. 99,000/- paid by her to the respondents be got refunded alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. SHE has also prayed that damages to the tune of Rs. 99,000/- be also levied on the respondents on account of violating the terms and conditions of the contract. SHE further asked for award of compensation on account of rise in the cost of real estate. The respondents were issued notices on 21.5.92 vide order dated 18.5.92 for appearance on 19.6.92. Shri Arun Vohra, Advocate appeared for the respondents on 19.6.92 and requested for adjournment to enable him to submit the written statement. The next date of hearing was fixed as 2.7.92. On 2.7.92 neither the respondents nor their advocate appeared and consequently they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter, the respondent never appeared and as such the case has been heard ex-parte.

WE have gone through the record and heard the complainant at length. The factum regarding the booking of apartment and a shop by the respondent M/s. K.M. Enterprises as has not been denied. The payment of amount of Rs. 99,000/- is established from the receipts Annexures C, D, E & G on record filed by the complainant. All the payments have been made by the complainant through cheques and have been duly acknowledged by the respondents. It is also on record that the complainant requested the respondents to refund back the payment of Rs. 99.000/- with interest, after they failed to honour their commitment as per the terms and condition of the contract according to which the respondents had agreed to hand over the possession of the apartment and the shop within 15 months of the booking as has been recorded in para (iv) of Annexure-B. On scrutiny of the record it is revealed that the complainant had contacted the respondents and informed them through registered letter to honour their promise. But there was no response from the side of the respondents. In the light of the above discussed facts and un-rebutted documentary evidence on record we find consistency in the claim made by the complainant. Amount of Rs. 99,000/- has been paid to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 through cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank and valid receipts in support thereof have also been placed before us by the complainant. The third respondent Mr. M. Ramchandani appears to have played the role of an agent only. The claim of the complainant for refund of Rs. 99,000/- against the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 is therefore, accepted and they are ordered to make payment of the amount. These respondents No. 1 & 2 are further ordered to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the various payments made by the complainant to the respondents 1 & 2 w.e.f. the respective dates of payment upto the date of complaint viz., 29.4.92 which comes to Rs. 48,141/-. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the payment of the above interest @ 18% p.a. will take care of the damages claimed by the complainant. The respondents No. 1 & 2 are further ordered to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 1,47,141/- from the date of order till the date of payments within a period of 2 months, otherwise action under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act shall be taken against them. No order as to costs as the respondents did not context .the case. Complaint allowed.