Haryana

StateCommission

CC/122/2016

SUSHIL KUMAR KHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADEL LANDMARKS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

INDERDEEP SINGH

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.122 of 2016

                                                       Date of Institution: 12.05.2016                            Date of Decision: 10.06.2016

 

Sushil Kumar Kher son of Sh.Bansi Lal Kher, Permanent resident of E-2190, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana at present MSCEB, Juffair Office, P.O.Box 1166, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain through power of attorney Sh.Bansi Lal Kher, Permanent resident of E-2190, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

…..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 booked apartment with OP on 26.03.2012 against payment of Rs.6,00,000/-. He made amounting to Rs. 31,62,476/- as per demand raised by OP from time to time, as mentioned in the complaint. On 29.08.2013 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). 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 were also not in the name of OP and were in the names of different persons. Show cause notices are also issued to OP about violations. OP is not in a position to handover possession of apartment to him as well as other allottees. O.P. be directed to refund Rs.31,62,476/- 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 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 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 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 29.08.2013, 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. As per this agreement, the 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, 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 complainant that the OP would 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 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. 

June, 10th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench