BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI
Complaint Case No. of 2017
In the matter of :
1. Kuldeep Singh
S/o Sh. Jaibir Singh,
R/o VPO Kirodi, Tehsil- Barwala,
District Hisar, Haryana.
2. Jitender
S/o Sh. Prem Sing,
R/o Village RojKhera,
PO-Ghoria, Tehsil Narwana,
District Jind, Haryana.
.... Complainants
Versus
1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited,
SCO No. 190-191-192,
Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.
(through its authorized representative).
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited,
Regd. Office at 2nd floor, DLF
Gateway Tower, DLF City,
Phase-III, National Highway-8,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
(through its authorized representative).
...Opposite Parties
Replication on behalf of the Complainant
.
1. That the contents of para no. 1 of the reply are wrong and
hence specifically denied. It is specifically denied that the complaint is
based on vague, misconceived notions and baseless assumptions of
the complainants. It is also denied that the complaint is not
maintainable as it miserably fails to bring on record any deficiency in
service by the Opposite Parties or any breach of
agreement/understanding by the Opposite Parties.
2. That the contents of para no. 2 of the reply are formal
para and, hence, needs no reply.
3. Reply to preliminary submission: -
1. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT: - That the contents of
para no. 1 of the preliminary submission are wrong and hence
vehemently denied being want of knowledge.
2. PRESENT STATUS OF THE PROJECT: - That the
contents of para no. 2 of the preliminary submission are wrong and
hence denied. It is specifically denied that the opposite parties have
completed the constructions of 1517 built up units and out of 1775
built up units, Occupation Certificate has been received for 1473 units
and offer of possessions are in process. It is denied that the proper
water connection and electricity supply is in place and full
housekeeping and maintenance services are being provided through
leading multinational Company namely Jones Lang Lasalle (JLI). It is
submitted that the opposite party has only constructed and handed
over the flats, however, the complainant booked plot in the project of
OP’s ("DLF Valley, Panchkula" at Village Bhagwanpur, Tehsil & District
Kalka, Panchkula) on 31.03.2012 and no possession has been handed
over by the OP’s till date to any of the applicant including the
complainant.
REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: -
1. That the contents of para No. 1 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also. It is specifically denied
that the complainants have approached to this Hon’ble Commission
with unclean hands and have tried to mislead this Hon’ble
Commission by making incorrect and false averments and stating
untrue and/or incomplete facts and, as such, guilty of suppression
very and sugggestio falsi. It is specifically denied that the
complainants have suppresses and/or misstated the facts and, as
such, the complaint apart from being wholly misconceived is rather
the abuse of the process of law.
2. That the contents of para No. 2 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also. It is specifically denied
that the complainants have neither any cause of action nor any locus
standi to maintain the present complaint against the Opposite
Parties,. It is denied that the complainants are seeking the
amendment/modification/re-writing of the terms of the concluded and
binding inter-se application entered into between the complainants
and the Opposite Parties. It is denied that the complainants have
defaulted in making timely and entire payments.
3. That the contents of para No. 3 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also. It is further submitted
that there was an intentional delay on the part of the OP’s parties in
handing over possession of the plots, as the OP’s have verbally agreed
to enter into written agreement after making 25% payment but the
same was not executed by the OP’s due to the reason best known to
them. In this regard para 3 of the terms and conditions of allotment
letter reads as under: -
“The applicant shall agree that the applicant shall pay the
price of the plot and other charges which are tentatively
described in this Application as the allotment is only
provisional and will be more clearly defined in the Plot
Buyer’s Agreement which upon its execution shall become
final and binding on the Applicant.”
The OP’s neither entered into the Plot Buyer’s Agreement with
the complainant even after making more than 25% amount of the plot
nor took steps for completion of the project and have also not returned
the amount of the Rs. 61,64,228/- alongwith interest @ 18 p.a. The
relevant para 4 (b) of the terms and agreement of allotment letter is
further reads as under: -
“The company has made clear to the Applicant that it shall
carry out extensive developmental/constructions activities
for may years in future in the areas falling inside/outside the
Said Colony in which Applicant’s plot is located and that the
applicant on being made aware of this fact by the Company
has/have confirmed that Applicant shall not raise any
objections or make any claims or default in any payments as
demanded by the Company on account of inconvenience, if
any, which may be suffered by him/them due to such
developmental/constructions or its incidental/related
activities.”
The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.
61,64,228/- (i.e. more than 25% of the plot) to the OP’s with
the period from 31.02.2012 to 23.08.2013 (i.e. within a per
of 16 months), however, there was no effort on behalf of the
OP’s for improvements or handing over possession of the plot
to any of the applicant including the complainant.
4. That the contents of para No. 4 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and in reply thereto contents of para 27 of
complaint maybe read herewith as the same are not reiterated
herewith for the sake of brevity. It is specifically denied that the
complainants have made baseless allegations of unfair trade practice,
deficiency in service etc. with an ulterior motive to amend/modify or
re-write any concluded agreement/contract duly executed between the
parties purely to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. It
is denied that the complainants are seeking any additional benefits
beyond the application form, by seeking modification in the terms and
conditions of the Application Form., by seeking modification in the
terms and conditions of the Application Form. It is further denied that
the complainants are inviting this Hon’ble Commission to assume the
powers conferred on the for a under the Competition Act and/or under
the Civil Court. It is denied that this Hon’ble Commission does not
have the jurisdiction to consider the present complainant or pass
orders on the relief claimed.
b. It is denied that the application form is sacrosanct and the
terms of the same are binding between the parties and this Hon’ble
Commission has no power or jurisdiction under the Act to direct
modification of any terms of the Application form. It is further denied
that the terms and conditions of the application form are binding
between the parties and it has to be implemented in terms thereof and
no direction can be given to implement the same contrary to the terms
and scope thereof.
c.
c.
5. That the contents of para No. 5 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also. It is further submitted
that the complainant paid a considerable amount on the promise of
the OP’s with regard to Plot Buyer Agreement and passion of the plot
and for this purpose he visited the office of the OP’s at Chandigarh
many time. The Cancellation letter dated 18.11.2014 was not received
by the complainant and hence the same was not objected by the
complainant and even the OP’s did not make aware to the complainant
in this regard and continue to meet with the complainant while
making one or other excuses regard refund of payment. This fact can
be verified from the legal notice dated 15.03.2016 and emails to the
OP’s on various dates i.e. 30.07.2016, 02.09.2016, 14.09.2016 and
lastly 19.09.2016 which were not even replied by the OP’s.
6. That the contents of para No. 6 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also. It is further submitted
that both the complainant are Government Employees and purchased
the plot for residential purpose.
7. That the contents of para No. 7 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also.
8. That the contents of para No. 8 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also.
9. That the contents of para No. 9 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also.
10. That the contents of para No. 10 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also.
11. That the contents of para No. 11 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also.
12. That the contents of para No. 12 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also.
13. That the contents of para No. 13 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also.
14. That the contents of para No. 14 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also.
15. That the contents of para No. 15 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also.
16. That the contents of para No. 16 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also.
17. That the contents of para No. 17 of preliminary objections
are wrong and hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated.
Contents of reply to preliminary submissions/preliminary objections
be read as part and parcel of these paras also.
On merits: -
1. That the contents of para 1 of the complaint are admitted
by the opposite party and that of the complaint are reiterated.
2. That the contents of para 2 of the complaint are admitted
by the opposite party and that of the complaint are reiterated.
3. That the contents of para 3 of the complaint are admitted
by the opposite party and that of the complaint are reiterated.
4. That the contents of para No. 4 are wrong and hence
denied and that of complaint are reiterated. Contents of reply to
preliminary submissions/preliminary objections be read as part and
parcel of these paras also.
5. That the contents of para No. 5 are wrong and hence
denied and that of complaint are reiterated. Contents of reply to
preliminary submissions/preliminary objections be read as part and
parcel of these paras also.
6-13. That the contents of paras No. 6-13 are wrong and
hence denied and that of complaint are reiterated. Contents of reply to
preliminary submissions/preliminary objections be read as part and
parcel of these paras also.
14. That the contents of para No. 14 are wrong and hence
denied and that of complaint are reiterated. Contents of reply to
preliminary submissions/preliminary objections be read as part and
parcel of these paras also.
15. That the contents of para No. 15 are wrong and hence
denied and that of complaint are reiterated. Contents of reply to
preliminary submissions/preliminary objections be read as part and
parcel of these paras also.
16-28. That the contents of para No. 16-28 are wrong and hence
denied and that of complaint are reiterated. Contents of reply to
preliminary submissions/preliminary objections be read as part and
parcel of these paras also.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present
complaint may kindly be allowed as prayed for, in the interest of
justice.
NEW DELHI
DATED : COMPLAINANT No.1
COMPLAINANT No.2
Through :
[Sanjib Dutta/ Harendar Singh/ Sandeep Sihag]
Advocates for the Complainants
Ch. No. 655, Lawyer’s Chambers,
Dwarka Distt. Courts
Sector 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi
Mob.
9711195011
VERIFICATION:
We, the above named Complaints, do hereby verify and state
on solemn affirmation that the contents of Paragraph No.1 to
21 of the Complaint are true and correct to my knowledge,
those of paragraphs no. 22 to 28 of the Complaint are the
legal submissions, which are true upon the information
received and believed to be true. Last paragraph is prayer to
this Hon'ble Commission.
Verified at New Delhi on this day of March, 2017.
COMPLAINANT No.1
COMPLAINANT No. 2
PLACE : NEW DELHI
DATED : 03.2017
BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT NEW DELHI
Complaint Case No. of 2017
Kuldeep Singh & Anr. ……Complainants
Vs
DLF Homes Panchkula Private Ltd. & Anr. ……Opposite
Parties
AFFIDAVIT
I, Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Jaibir Singh, r/o VPO Kirodi, Tehsil-
Barwala, District Hisar, Haryana at present at New Delhi, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1) I say that, in the present matter, I am the Complainant No. 1
and I know the facts and circumstances of the present Revision
Petition and I am able and competent to depose thereto for self
and on behalf of the Complainant No. 2.
2) I say that, I have read and understood the contents of the
accompanying Complaint which have been drafted under my
instruction by my counsel and having understood the same, I
further say that the facts stated therein are true to my
knowledge based on my personal knowledge and records
available.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this the ….. day of March, 2017, that the
contents of the above affidavit are true and correct and nothing of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
