Delhi

East Delhi

CC/197/2015

GAURAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANS APARTMENT - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 197/15

 

Shri Gaurav Jindal

S/o Shri Prem Kumar Jindal

R/o 298, Phase-I, Modal Town

Urban Estate, Bathinda, Punjab – 151 001                         ….Complainants

 

Vs.

 

1. M/s. ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Off.: B78-B, Sector D-2, Group II

DDA Flats, Kondli, gharili, Mayur Vihar – III

•  

2. Ankur Jain

ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Off.: B78-B, Sector D-2, Group II

DDA Flats, Kondli, gharili, Mayur Vihar – III

•  

3. M/s. Rajput Properties & Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Off.: C-56/36, 2^nd Floor, Magtech Building

Sector-62, UP

4. Sunil Kumar Rajput, Managing Director

M/s. Rajpur Properties & Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Off.: C-56/36, 2^nd Floor, Magtech Building

Sector-62, UP                                                                               ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 15.04.2015

Judgment Reserved on:03.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 08.11.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Gaurav Jindal has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against M/s. ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1), Ankur Jain (OP-2), M/s. Rajpur Properties & Developers Pvt. Ltd.(OP-3) and Sunil Kumar Rajput (OP-4).

The complainant booked one flat/unit No. F-601 in Tower-F on     6^th floor at SRG measuring 1725 sq. ft., which was developed by M/s. ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2013.  Signatures of the complainant as well as his wife Deepika Jindal were taken by OP-3 &4 on behalf of OP-1&2.  Total cost of the flat was Rs. 47,00,625/-, out of which 25% was paid by the complainant at the time of registration amount of Rs. 7,06,000/- through cheque no. 476938 dated 13.08.2013 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. to OP-1, which was got en-cashed by OP-1&2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,69,000/- was to be paid to OPs through cheque no. 476940 dated 31.08.2013 drawn on ICICI bank.  However, the said cheque of Rs. 4,69,000/- was not got en-cashed by OPs.   As per terms and conditions, the remaining amount of 75% of the total price was to be paid at the time of taking possession. 

OP-3 & 4 issued payment schedule of dated 26.08.2013 showing that an amount of  Rs. 7,06,000/- out of 25% amount of the total price of Rs. 47,00,625/- was received and Rs. 4,69,156/- was outstanding.  it was further mentioned in the said schedule that amount i.e. Rs. 35,25,469/- was to be paid at the time of possession.  A welcome letter of dated 26.08.2013 was given to the complainant by OP-3 & 4.  The complainant was shocked when he received one reminder-3 of dated 27.02.2014 from OP-1 & 2 in which they raised a demand of Rs. 38,77,882/- from the complainant.  The said letter is stated to have been illegal, null and void, arbitrary and against the rules and terms and conditions of the policy. 

It has further been stated that letter of dated 27.02.2014, which was Reminder-3, the complainant did not receive any letter.  Even the complainant never opted cash down payment plan.  The complainant wrote letter of dated 25.03.2014 to OP for withdrawal of the said letter, which was not done so.  Thus, he has stated that by not withdrawing the said letter of dated 27.02.2014, they have shown deficiency in services and unfair trade practices.  Hence, he has prayed for withdrawal of letter of dated 27.02.2014; cancellation of flat no. 601; refund of Rs. 7,06,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a.; compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental pain and agony and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.        Notice of the complaint was given to OPs.  However, they did not put the appearance, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.        In support of its case, the complainant examined himself on affidavit.  He has deposed the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of application form (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of cheque of Rs. 7,06,000/- (Ex.CW-1/2) and Rs. 4,69,000/- (Ex.CW-1/3), copy of welcome letter (Ex.CW-1/4), copy of letter of dated 27.02.2014 (Ex.CW-1/5), copy of letter of dated 25.03.2014 (Ex.CW-1/6) and its postal receipt (Ex.CW-1/7), copy of letter of dated 21.05.2014 (Ex.CW-1/8)and its postal receipt (Ex.CW-1/9). 

5.        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the documents placed on record such as Ex.CW-1/2, Ex.CW-1/4, it is noticed that the complainant got booked flat on paying an amount of Rs. 7,06,000/- and they were allotted flat No. 601.  Ex.CW-1/4 is letter of dated 25.02.2014 showing the demand raised by M/s. ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1). 

Further from MOU of dated 18.02.2014 of M/s. Rajput Group of Companies, it is noticed that payment of Rs. 7,06,000/- was received by M/s. ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) through M/s. Rajput Properties and Developers (OP-3).  This MOU also states that in future, it is M/s. ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), which will receive the payment in respect of unit no. F-601.  Thus, the fact remains that M/s. Rajput Properties and Developers (OP-3) and  Mr. Sunil Kumar Rajput (OP-4) have only acted on behalf of M/s. ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Mr. Ankur Jain from ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) and the booking amount of Rs. 7,06,000/- have been received by M/s. ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1).  This MOU shows that there has been dispute between M/s. ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and M/s. Rajput Properties and Developers (OP-3), which they have settled and liability has been put on M/s. ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) for dealing with their customers. 

6.        Since the amount has been transferred to M/s. ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Mr. Ankur Jain from ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) being their partner/official are liable to refund the amount as the complainants have not been delivered the possession within the reasonable period as there is nothing on record to show as to when the possession was to be delivered.  Since, the possession has not been delivered within the reasonable period, certainly, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 & 2.  Therefore, the complainants have to be refunded the amount of Rs. 7,06,000/-, which was deposited by them being part of 25% of the booking amount. 

7.        In view of the above, since there has been deficiency on the part of Op-1 & 2 only, they are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,06,000/- to the complainants with 6% interest p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its realisation.  They are further directed to pay compensation for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental agony and pain.  This includes the cost of litigation.  The order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the awarded amount of Rs. 7,26,000/-will be payable with 6% interest p.a. from the date of filing till realisation. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President