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