[Resolved]  Vatika Group — Cheating, duping, hoodwinking and forgery by M/s. Vatika Ltd. in its Vatika Infotech City, Jaipur and other schemes.

Address: New Delhi, Delhi

Copy of letter delivered to EOW, Delhi Police Cheating, duping, hoodwinking and forgery by M/s. Vatika Ltd. in its Vatika Infotech City, Jaipur and other schemes. Sir, I am a senior citizen of 61 years of age without any pension or any other source of regular income. I booked a plot (No. TPNAvB3rd St.9 OF 180 sq. yds.) in 2006, along my son – Amit Gupta with M/s. Vatika. Company promised to give the possession of plot within three years i.e. by June, 2008 as the scheme closed in June, 2005. As per agreement, upon failure to deliver possession in time, allottee was entitled for the refund of the amounts paid by him with simple interest @9% p.a. but the Company neither given possession nor refunded full amount paid to it along with interest on the deposit amount. The modus-operendi to dupe the allottees is/ was as under: 2. In early 2005, the Company came out with a scheme of thousands of plots and row housing in Vatika Infotech City, Jaipur and at the time of booking, the terms and conditions were kept under wrap deliberately stating that the agreement will be entered upon later on. In fact, Vatika put the cart before the horse and after taking more than 70% amount from the clients, the agreement was sent reportedly to us, despite reminders by us and others about after two years. This should be seen in the light of the declaration on the preface (page one) of the agreement, “The Plot Buyer’s Agreement will not be binding on the Promoter until executed by the Promoter through its authorized signatory”. 3. That after taking the maximum amount of over Rs. 7 lakh 32 thousand out of about 10 lakhs, the blank copy of the agreement was sent to us for our signature. After sending the agreement by signing by us, the same was not returned for long. Mrs. Punita Chanotra of Vatika in her e-mail dated 13.10.2006 (Annexure-3) in reply to my email wrote, ”This is with reference to your mail dated 06/09/06, following is the point wise reply to the said mail, (reply to Point 1), First of all, we shall like to apologize for the delay in relying to your mail. Following is the point wise reply to the said mail. (Point 2). We expect to handover the possession of plots within 24 months. Development work including laying of roads, construction of site office, sample apartments and the parks has already being started.” …. (Point 3). Your agreement is under the process of execution.” After the receipt of the agreement later-on, we came to know that it was one-sided agreement, abuse of dominant position by the promoter. It was mentioned on page one titled “important instructions to the intending Allottees(s)” of the agreement, “If the intending Allottee(s) fails to execute and deliver to the Promoter the Plot Buyer’s Agreement in its original form duty signed within ten (10) days from the date of despatch by registered post by the Promoter, then the application of the intending Allottee shall be treated as cancelled and the earnest money paid by the intending Allottee shall stand forfeited without any notice or reminders and the intending Allottee(s) shall be left with no right, title or interest in any form or manner in the Plot provisionally offered to the intending Allottee(s)”. Therefore the customer had no option than to agree with this one-sided agreement heavily tilted in favour of the Company as the Company closed all the exit routes. Copy of agreement is enclosed marked as Annexure 1. 4. That after sending the signed agreement by us, Company took many months to return the same to us, despite many reminders. Though, Shri Gaurav Bhalla, Managing Director of the Company signed the agreement, the date of the execution of the agreement was left blank with malafide intention as clause 10 of the agreement stipulates that the plots will be given in 3 years from the date of agreement. 5. That clause 7 of the agreement stipulates that time is essence in respect of buyer’s obligation meaning thereby that the client is bound to pay in time but the Company is not bound to deliver the possession in time. There are many other one-sided clauses in the agreement. Last year, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has modified such an agreement entered into by the DLF Ltd. to make it just and fair for the both parties. The CCI order is applicable even to the agreements entered into before the CCI Act came into force as these agreements remained operational even after they were entered before the CCI Act came into the force. 6. That even after entering the one-sided agreement, the Company has not complied even that and hoodwinked, duped and cheated us. The details are as follows: 7. Non-delivery of possession of plots after taking full 95% amount: For extracting money from the customers, Vatika Ltd. Gurgaon makes false promises and when the 95% i.e. Rs. 9, 33, 469/- (Rs. Nine Lakh thirty three thousand four hundred and sixty nine only) is taken, it resorts to false excuses for denying the possession of the plots. Clause 10 of the agreement stated that the possession of the plot will be given within three years but after 5 years of the booking since 2010 onward, started compelling the allottees to take alternative plots against their wishes upon its failure to give the allotted plots. Most of the allottees are still waiting for the possession or refund of their amount with 9% interest as per clause 14 of the plot buyer’s agreement. Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) has informed on 16.7.13 that in reply to RTI application that so far, the lease deed has been issued to only 44 allottees. 8. That in an email dated 13.10.2006, Ms. Punita Chanotra, CRM personal of the Company justifying the demand of the company made false promise knowingly “we expect to hand over the possession of plots within 24 months”. Copy of the e-mail is annexed as Annexure 2. 9. That on 14th Nov. 2007, Karishma Kaul Babbar (Head-CRM) informed Ms. Pratima Khilnani Kumar (Plot No. GPSAvA3rd St.3 in 500 Sq. Yds.), “The development work at Vatika Infotech City – Jaipur is proceeding as per plan (please refer updates in the latest issue of FOCUS) and possession of all plots in the entire 808-acre township will be handed over in a maximum period of 18 months from the date of disbursement of the loan against the above-mentioned plot no”. Copy of the letter is annexed and mentioned as Annexure 3. 10. That the Mr. Surjit Ray, Sr. Manager, Client Services of Vatika in his letter dated 30.7.2010 has deliberately misrepresented, “that the area in which plot is located is in progress at full swing”. He claimed, “we have successfully handed-over possession of approximately 1000 plots……The development work beyond the Central Park area is progressing well and we expect to handover all the plots within the next 12-14 months’ time period depending on the location of your plot”. That all the above promised proved false and the Company has thus deliberately committed “criminal breach of trust” by making false statements to hoodwink us. Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure 4. 11. In the face of the facts given in this complaint, it is perceived that Vatika Limited has also misrepresented to the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Shri Anupam Varshnay, Head-CRM, Vatika in his letter dated 31.1.2008 sent to Shri Dilip Sharan/Sandeep Sharan said Vatika has allotted 300 sq. yds. plot to them. (Plot No. GPSAvBI W St.16.) In its letter, Vatika mentioned, “that we have obtained necessary CLU/permissions/ approvals/ sanctions for construction/ development of the said project from all the concerned competent authorities and development of the plots are in accordance with the approved plans”. ……… “We have a clear, legal and marketable title in the said property and every part thereof.” ………… Copy of the letter is enclosed and marked as Annexure 6. That such declaration was against the facts and information given by the JDA. From the RTI replies from the JDA, it is clear that the aforesaid plot does not exist in the Vatika Infotech City till date. I came to know that Mr. Sharan was granted a loan of Rs. 11-lakh and many other allottees were also given such loans but it is understood that after sensing everything fishing in the claim made by the Company, LICHF stopped granting loans further. Now, it is apprehend that the loans granted by the LICHF may be at risk as all or most of the borrowers, including aforesaid “Sharans” have not been given possession of the plots even after paying the desired amount to the Company. Also, it is charged that Vatika has misrepresented and duped a public sector company like LICHF. 12. That Venika Kapoor of the Company in her email dated 14.03.2011 i.e. after 5 years of the launch of the scheme has taken u-turn and informed that the respondent company was unable to give possession of the plot in question and instead offered an alternate plot at another site which was also not ready for possession. Copy of the letter is annexed and mentioned as Annexure 6. Later, on personal visit, the alternative plot in phase-II were offered. The JDA in its RTI reply dated 5.3.2012 on para 6D has informed that phase-II is not approved. No reason about the inability to give the possession of allotted plot has ever been given to us and other clients with whom we are in touch. 13. That on not getting plot for over 5 years, M.K. Gupta, complainant sent a letter dated 15.4.2011 by speed post booked under ED[protected]IN to Mrs. Karishma Kaul Babbar, Head, CRM of the company but the Company refused to receive that letter. Copy of the letter along with envelope cover with the comments on 19.4.2011, “Return to sender, LEFT” are annexed and marked asAnnexure 7 and Annexure 9. 14. That the Company has further hoodwinked us by falsely informing in its email dated 19.6.2012. “……..has been created for you and a member of the team will respond to the queries of the complainant as soon as possible” in reply to our email dated 16.6.12 but no answer has been given so far. Copy of the email is annexed and marked as Annexure 9. 15. Loan from Financial Institutions: Vatika Ltd. misrepresented as Shri Surjit Ray, Sr. Manager, Vatika said informed in his letter dated 30.7.2010 to all the clients, in the event you wish to avail a home loan, the same is available through LIC. We will be pleased to facilitate the same, if desired by you but to our knowledge, the LIC has not sanctioned any loan to any client. (Vide Annexure __ ). Moreover, Ms. Karishma Kaul Babbar (Head-CRM) informed Ms. Pratima Khilanani Kumar vide letter dated 14th Nov. 2007, “We are pleased to inform you that financial institutions have commenced disbursement of bank loan for the section in which your plot is located, at “Vaika Infotech city-Jaipur” vide Annexure-__ . LIC Housing Finance initially granted some loans but afterwards they stopped to grant the same. We apprehend that they have stopped granting loans after finding that Vatika has misrepresented the facts to them. For more, please read para 10 above. 16. Refund without interest: Though as per terms of the agreement vide clause no. 14 of the agreement, Company should have refunded the amount paid to it with 9% interest upon its failure to give possession within 3 years but instead, yet the Company has refunded the deposited amount after 6 years and that too after making unexplained deduction of Rs. 9, 000/- after forcing us to give in declaring in writing that it is full and final settlement and we ourselves are opting out. Even we were forced to give in writing on the performa provided by the Vatika that due to certain personal circumstances, we are not in a position to go ahead with the purchase of the said property. We were also compelled to give in writing that we are withdrawing the notice dated 15.3.2011 to get the money paid to the Company. This is clear from the fact that we paid 95% of the total cost and no demand was pending and thus it was illogical go withdraw if the possession was handed over to us. 17. Total area/size of Vatika Infotech City: Company claimed that the township spreads across 800 acres or 808-acres vide copy of the advt. in Hindustan Times dated 6.5.2006 annexed as Annexure __and copy of a letter dated 14th Nov. 2007 to Ms. Pratima Khilnani Kumar at Annexure __. On the contrary, the JDA has informed that the original approved area is only 206372.63 sq. metre which comes to less than 51-acre which was approved on 15.10.2005. 18. The Company has booked plots in sq. yds. while the JDA has approved plots in metres and therefore there is a mismatch of sizes of all the plots. Copy of JDA reply of RTI dated 16.7.13 is annexed and marked at Annexure 2. 19. That the JDA has also informed on my query about the measurement of applied area of phase-II and details of pending approvals applied by Vatika that the map of phase-II has not been issued so far and the information can be given after the issue of the map. 20. That JDA has approved 44 plots so far in this city and out of them, Vatika has allotted 8 plots for itself, 2 for its Director and others, who may be closed to the Management. 21. OVERCHARGING EDC: Though the Company has deposited Rs. 50/- per sq. metre as External Development Charges with the JDA and the rates of the EDC has not been finalized and Vatika should have taken the same amount from its customers. According to information given to another client, Mr. Rajendra Ahuja by the Company, it has calculated EDC @ Rs. 314/- per sq. yds. (not in metre) and already included the same at this rate in the cost of the plots. Thus the EDC comes to around Rs. 375/- per sq. metre which is over 6 times from the charges deposited by the Company with the JDA so far. Thus the Vatika has overcharged and cheated the clients. 22. That the thousands of applicants have booked plots, houses and Bungalows in the Vatika Infotech City and now they are running either to get the plots and possibly the flats also or for the refund but the Vatika is not responding. Copy of the map issued of this city by Vatika is annexed as Annexure-__, showing thousands of plots and houses for your kind perusal.