Haryana

StateCommission

CC/364/2016

NEERAJ GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADEL LANDMARKS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

INDERDEEP SINGH

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA.

                                                Complaint No.364 of 2016

                                                       Date of Institution: 25.11.2016

Date of Decision: 09.01.2017

 

Neeraj Goel S/o Sh.Anand Kumar Goyal, R/o H.No.302/1, Ashok Vihar, Gurgaon 122001.

…..Complainant

 

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 complainant.

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          It is alleged by complainant that he wanted to purchase house in Gurgaon and for that purpose he approached Opposite party (O.P.).  It was told that the flats were already booked and one flat, which was purchased by M/s Escalade Enterprises India Private Ltd., New Delhi (In short “M/s Escalade”), is available for sale and he purchased that flat from M/s Escalade through O.P.No.1 and paid Rs.three lacs. Thereafter the said flat was transferred in his name.  As per allotment letter he was allotted unit No.CSM/86/F-0604 Sector-86 Gurgaon. The Total price of the unit was Rs.32,66,900/-. He paid Rs. 23,31,748/- as per demand raised by OP from time to time, as mentioned in the complaint. On 08.10.2013 Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed in between them and possession was to be delivered within 60 months (54 months + 6 months as a grace period). He was shocked to find that there was no construction in Sector-86, Gurgaon.  Even OP changed the name of the company from Era Landmarks Ltd. to Adel Landmarks Ltd.  Thereafter OP sold this project to Ansal Group for Rs.55 crores, as mentioned in the order of Hon’ble High Court. Many criminal cases are also registered against Ex-M.D. Licenses also not in the name of OP and are in the names of different persons. Show cause notices are also issued to OP about violations and it is not in a position to handover possession of apartment to him as well as other allottees. It be directed to refund Rs.23,31,748/- alongwith interest @ 24 % besides Rs.5 lacs as of compensation for harassment & mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.      Arguments heard. File perused.

3.      Learned counsel for the complainant 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 the OP has sold the project for Rs.55 crores. As per Annexures C-9 dated 19.05.2015, it is clear that OP has been restrained from allotting any apartment to anyone and it’s license has been cancelled. When license is cancelled, it is not in a position to raise 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 08.10.2013, it is clear that the possession is to be delivered within 54 months from that date with a grace period of 6 months, total 60 months i.e. 5 years. In this way possession is to be delivered by 29.08.2018, whereas this complaint is filed in the year 2016. Cause of action will accrue to complainant 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 A, 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 complainant 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 property to Ansal Group. It is settled proposition of law that an immovable property, having value of more than Rs.100/- can be transferred only 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 complainant will be at liberty to file complaint after expiry of date agreed in between them. 

 

January, 09th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.