Unfair Trade Practice, Central Delhi District Commission Orders Ace Town Planners To Refund Amount, Awards Cost And Compensation

Recently, the Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Inder Jeet Singh (President), Shahina (Member) and Vyas Muni Rai (Member) held Ace Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. responsible for deficiency of services and unfair trade practices. Further, the bench noted that despite the fact that the Complainant made the regular payments for the plot, there was no progress on the site, and he had not received possession as promised. Brief Facts of the Case: Naveen James (“Complainant”) came across the Ace Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. (“Builder”) advertisement for plots in the 'Project' Celebrity City in Jaipur. He registered for a 125 sq. yard plot and made an initial payment of Rs. 12,500/-. The builder allotted Plot No. 73, Sector 3, against a total cost of Rs. 2,68,625/-, which included various charges. The complainant claimed to have paid a total of Rs. 1,17,278/- by April 5, 2014. However, when he visited the project site, he found no progress and learned that the builder did not have the required licenses or permissions for development. The promised possession was not delivered. In July 2016, due to urgent financial needs for surgery, the complainant requested a refund from the builder. An agreement was made on July 13, 2016, to refund Rs. 50,122/-, but the builder failed to honour this agreement, even after the complainant returned all the original documents. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the builder in the Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“District Commission”), alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. The builder argued that there was no deficiency of services or unfair trade practices on their part. They claimed that the complainant had not paid the remaining amount for the plot as per their convenience and that no payments were made after April 5, 2014. The builder asserted that they had a good reputation and had successfully completed other projects. They cited delays due to government formalities as the reason for the project's slow progress. The builder contended that the complainant had requested the cancellation of the plot allotment due to financial difficulties in July 2016, and they agreed to refund Rs. 50,122/-. However, they claimed that the complainant failed to return the original documents, which was a condition for the refund. The respondent denied any wrongdoing, including the complainant's allegations of cheating and unfair trade practices. They argued that the complainant had not suffered any mental agony or harassment due to their actions. Observations by the Commission: The District Commission determined that the builder had indeed failed to provide the services promised to the complainant. Despite the complainant making payments totalling Rs. 1,17,278/- for a residential plot, the builder did not deliver possession as per the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”). The MOU clearly outlined the terms of possession and payment, which the builder failed to fulfil. This constituted a deficiency of services and unfair trade practices on their part. As a result of these findings, the District Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, ordering the builder to refund the entire amount of Rs. 1,17,278/- that he had deposited with them. The District Commission considered the builder’s attempt to execute a cancellation deed and return a reduced amount unjustified, given that they had already taken back all the original documents in line with the deed. Furthermore, the District Commission awarded the complainant simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the complaint until the realization of the refunded amount. Additionally, recognizing the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant by the builder’s actions, he was granted a compensation amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The District Commission also imposed punitive damages of Rs. 15,000/- on the builder, citing their inconsistent and false pleas regarding the return of original documents as a basis for this punitive measure. In addition to these orders, the District Commission directed the builder to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the complainant to cover his legal expenses. Case: Naveen James vs Ace Town Planners Case No.: CC/61/2017 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Unfair Trade Practice, Central Delhi District Commission Orders Ace Town Planners To Refund Amount, Awards Cost And Compensation

Smita Singh

Tags