Complaint Case No. 242 of 2011. Case: Ravi Kumar Deeka Vs S.G. Estates Limited. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Complaint Case No. 242 of 2011 |
| Judges | S.A. Siddiqui, Member (J) and S.C. Jain, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 26 (Del.) |
| Judgement Date | May 30, 2014 |
| Court | Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (J)
-
This complaint has been filed by Shri Ravi Kumar Deeka and his wife Mrs. Sapna Deeka against OP M/s. S.G. States Ltd., under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1985 (hereinafter called Act) for direction to transfer ownership of apartment No. 604, for payment of compensation and cost of litigation. OP-1 M/s. S.G. Estates Ltd. a registered company started a Group Housing Project named "S.G. Homes". The complainants applied and were allotted an apartment bearing No. 604 with super area, 1310 sq.ft. built up area 94.20 sq.mtr. situated on the 6th floor. Out of, total cost of Rs. 34,06,000 complainants made payment of Rs. 7,01,200 (as per schedule given in the complaint). However, in the schedule of payment provided no time schedule for making the payment was given. The OPs very shrewdly did not take strict obligation upon themselves for taking steps to follow time schedule of construction, the entire contract was provided/couched in a manner which unduly benefited the OPs. The time for payment of instalment was not linked with time, but with construction and the time for start of construction was not disclosed anywhere leaving the buyer at the beak and call of the OP. As per agreement, the complainant was to pay 20% on start of excavation which was to start in the month of February, 2011. A letter dated 2/3.2.2011 was issued by the OP to the complainant for payment of Rs. 8,98,080 within a period of 15 days. The complainant had applied for sanction of loan from HDFC Bank which was delayed. The complainant, however, wanted to make the payment out of his own fund, but by then the period of 15 days had expired. It was just 2 or 3 days after expiry of 15 days period. The office of the OP refused to accept the payment with excuse that 15 days time has expired and they will issue fresh demand letter for payment. The second demand letter was issued on 23.2.2011 in which additional interest amount of Rs. 12,600 was added. The complainant was ready to make the payment of Rs. 8,98,080 but the dispute regarding payment of interest persisted between the parties. The complainant was ready to pay the interest for 2-3 days delay which was a much smaller amount than Rs. 12,600 as demanded by the OP. The complainant was told that his request was being forwarded to the company for consideration and was further asked to wait. The complainant kept for waiting but was shocked when OP maliciously sent a letter of termination of the allotment. The complainant kept on visiting the office of OP time and again for making payment but all in vain. Lastly, the complainants were left with no alternative but to issue legal notice dated 2.7.2011 to OP asking them to accept the payment which was ultimately refused. It was only the excavation that was going on then and there was no substantial advancement in construction work. Thus, there was no justification, what so ever, for denying the acceptance of offer of payment by complainant. Even after receiving the legal notice the OPs could have asked the complainants to make payment with reasonable interest of delayed period but not for the entire month for which period he charged the interest. The cancellation of agreement and forfeiture of earnest-money and subsequent allotment of the flat in question in favour of a 3rd party were all illegal acts which proved deficiency as well as indulgence to unfair trade practice by the builder.
-
OPs...
To continue reading
Request your trial