Haryana

StateCommission

CC/123/2016

GURU PYARI SRIVASTAVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADEL LANDMARKS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

INDERDEEP SINGH

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.123 of 2016

                                                       Date of Institution: 12.05.2016                            Date of Decision: 10.06.2016

 

1.      Mrs.Guru Pyari Srivastava wife of Sh.Anami Saran         Srivastava daughter of Sh.Bachan Lal Srivastava.

2.      Radhika Lekhi daughter of Sh.Anil Kumar Lekhi both      residents of Housed No.44, Ward No.15, Subhash Nagar,    Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

…..Complainantss.

 

Versus

 

Adel Landmarks Ltd. (formerly known as Era Landmarks Ltd.) Branch/site office, Sector 103 Cosmo City, Gurgaon, through its director Sumit Bharana.

Alternate Address B-24, Sector 3, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

          …..Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.R.S.Randhawa, Advocate counsel for the complainantss.

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

                                      It is alleged by complainants that one Santosh Sanga booked flat with opposite party (in short, O.P.) and paid a sum of Rs.13,45,325/-. Thereafter they (complainants) purchased that apartment from Santosh Sanga by paying. Rs.20,00,000/-, (Rs.13,45,325/- against receipts and Rs.6,54,675/- as premium) and got transferred the same in their name vide confirmation letter dated 18.01.2013. Further demand raised by the OP was also deposited from time to time, as mentioned in the complaint, total amounting to Rs. 34,03,597/-. On 21.07.2015 Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed in between them and the possession was to be delivered within 60 months (54 months + 6 months as a grace period). Thereafter OP sold this project to Ansal Group for Rs.55 crores, as mentioned in the order of Hon’ble High Court and many criminal cases are also registered against Ex-M.D. Licenses are also not in the name of OP and are in the name of different persons. Show cause notices are also issued to OP about violations. OP is not in a position to handover the possession of apartment to them as well as other allottees. O.P. be directed to refund Rs.34,03,597/- alongwith interest @24 % besides Rs.5 lacs as compensation for harassment, mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.                Arguments heard. File perused.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainants vehemently argued that so many FIRs are registered against MD of the OP and his bail application has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. An employee of Ansal Group has intimated that OP has sold the project for Rs.55 crores. As per Annexures A, B and C, filed today, it is clear that OP has been restrained from allotting any apartment to anyone and it’s license has been cancelled. When its license is cancelled, it is not in a position to raise the construction and be directed to refund the amount as mentioned above.

4.                          This argument is of no avail. From the perusal of Clause 10.1 of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 21.07.2015, it is clear that possession was to be delivered within 54 months from that date with a grace period of 6 months, total 60 months i.e. 5 years. As per this agreement, the possession was to be delivered by 21.07.2020 whereas this complaint is filed in the year 2016. Cause of action will accrue to complainants after expiry of the date mentioned in the agreement. At this stage, it cannot be opined that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. From the perusal of Annexure A1, the OP is restrained from creating third party right over the property till final decision is taken. It means that matter is still pending before the department and final verdict has not come.  As per annexure B dated 17.05.2016 OP has been asked to explain position on 13.06.2016. In that case also matter is still subjudice.  It is only the apprehension in the mind of the complainants that the OP will not be in a position to give possession. There is no document on the file to show that OP has sold the property to Ansal Group. It is  settled proposition of law that an immovable property having value of more than Rs.100/- can be transferred by way of registered document.

5.                          In view of the above discussion, it is clear that complaint is pre-mature and is not maintainable at this stage and is hereby dismissed.  However, the complainants will be at liberty to file complaint after expiry of date agreed in between them. 

June, 10th, 2015

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench