Haryana

StateCommission

CC/124/2016

REKHA SOLANKI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADEL LANDMARKS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

INDERDEEP SINGH

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.124 of 2016

                                                       Date of Institution: 12.05.2016                            Date of Decision: 10.06.2016

 

Rekha Solanki wife of Sh.Shamsher Singh resident of WZ-99A, Palam Village Delhi, 110045.

…..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 she booked apartment with the opposite party (in short, O.P.) on 19.03.2012 against payment of Rs.5,50,000/-.  She deposited the further payment from time to time as asked by O.P. and in total deposited Rs. 31,07,540/-. Last payment was made on 07.09.2013. Even after payment, no construction was found at the site. She visited office of OP several times and sought the refund of the amount, but, to no use.  Many criminal cases are also registered against Ex-M.D. Licenses were also not in the name of the OP and were in the names of different persons. Show cause notices are also issued to OP about violations. The OP is not in a position to handover the possession of apartments to her. During pendency of the criminal case before Hon’ble High Court OP refunded Rs.5,67,000/- only. So it be directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.25,43,540/- 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 complainant vehemently argued that she booked flat on 9.03.2012 against payment of Rs.5,50,000/- as mentioned in receipt Annexure C1. She made further payments as mentioned in receipts Annexures C-3, to C-8. So many criminal cases are registered against the Op at the instance of HUDA and it’s MD was arrested by the police.  His bail application has also been dismissed by Hon’ble High Court wherein it is mentioned that as per statement of employee of Ansal Group, he sold the project for Rs.55 crores.  From the perusal of Annexure A,B and C, it is clear that it’s license has already been cancelled. She wrote letter dated 28.02.2015 about cancellation of allotment and demanded refund.  Rs.5,64,000/- are already refunded and remaining amount is still with OP. As it not in a position to handover the possession, it be directed to refund the amount, as mentioned above. 

4.                          There is no ground to opine at this stage that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. The complaint is pre-mature. From the perusal of Annexure A, 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 decision has not come.  In Annexure B dated 17.05.2016 the 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 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.  It is no where alleged by complainant that on which date the possession was to be delivered. She has failed to show that fixed date has passed and the possession has not been delivered. As per pleadings, some amount has already been paid to her, so it cannot be presumed at this stage that any deficiency in service on the part of OP has occurred.  

4.                          As per above discussion, complaint is pre-mature and is not maintainable at this stage and is hereby dismissed.  However, the complainant will be at liberty to file the complaint if there is default on the part of OP in future. 

 

June, 10th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench