District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.128/2021.
Date of Institution: .09.03.2021.
Date of Order: .09.06.2022.
1. Sandeep Batra s/o Shri OP Batra, Resi: H.No. 541, Sector-28, Faridabad.
2. Seema Batra W/o Sandeep Batra, Resi: H.No. 541, Sector-28, Faridabad.
…….Complainants……..
Versus
1. Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd., Registered office: 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G.Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd. Sushant Megapolis Project, #56, UGF, Ansal Plaz, Plot NO.1/C, Institutional Area, Near Pari Chowk, grater Noida, UP-201308.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Sandeep Batra in person with counsel Smt. Ruchi Gupta.
Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 ex-arte vide order dated 19.10.2021.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainants booked a flat with the opposite parties vide application dated 26.012009. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued allotment letter dated 27th January, 2009 to the complainants and allotted apartment No. 0332 located in Tower No. E on 3rd floor having an approximate area of 94.84 sq. m. and customer code of the complainants was 505/S0044. The initial allotment was in the name of three people Sandeep Batra, Seema Batra and Usha Batra but later on name of Usha Batra was
got deleted. The complainants had paid a sum of Rs.18,64,261/- towards the payment of the said flat to the opposite parties vide various receipts between 27.01.2009 to 2nd Sept 2013. Post the payment of the entire value of the flat of Rs.18,64,261/- the complainants stopped receiving any updates from the opposite parties on the project. The complainant kept on continuously enquiring about the status of project for last many years but the opposite parties gave no reply to the calls or mails of the complainants. The complainant NO.1 sent email dated 21.04.2013 to the opposite parties and demanded a refund of the amount paid by them but vide email dated 22.04.2013, the opposite parties refused to refund the amount paid by the complainants. The complainant No.1 Sandeep Batra had number of visits to the Greater Noida office of the opposite parties in Ansal Mall, near Pari Chowk but every time, he was sent back by the office team of the opposite parties on some pretext or the other. Finally on 28.03.2019 the complainant NO.1 Sandeep Batra visited the opposite party’s office on Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and met Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Senior Manager Sales, Ansals Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., Ansal API. During the discussion, the Manager of the opposite party told the complainant that the project delivery date had been extended because he opposite party did not get the necessary clearance for the project from the Government and it would take more time for the opposite party to finish the project. The timeline for finishing the project was 42 months from the date of signing of the agreement i.e a period of 3 years six months starting from 27.01.2009 but the opposite parties had not been able to complete the same within the requisite timeline i.e till 2012, there had been a delay of almost 9 years in competing the project and this had caused undue suffering and agony to the complainants. The complainant sent legal notice dated 15.07.2019 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
2. Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 despite availing several effective opportunities. It was already 3.50p.m. Hence, opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.10.2021.
3. The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.
4 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd.. with the prayer to: a) pay a sum of Rs.18,64,621/- to the complainant alngwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the due date till final payment due to deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties alongiwth Rws.1,00,000/- on account of hardship and mental agony alongwith rs.50,000/- as the cost of the petition. b)submit before the Commission the status of the project a son 05.01.2019 vide which the opposite parties had stated that they would start giving possession in December, 2019, also the status of the project in the year 2012 when the opposite parties were to give possession to depict the delay and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, however the complainants were seeking refund of the amount paid by them to the opposite parties with interest and damages as stated above.
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Sandeep Batra, Ex.C-2 O(STR) – letter dated 31.08.2013, Ex.C-3 ((STR) – Receipts, Ex.C-4(STR) to C5 (STR) – emails, Ex.C6 – legal notice dated 15.07.2019, Ex.C-7 – postal receipts,, Ex.C8(colly) – track report,, Ex.C-9 - legal notice dated 13.09.2019. Ex.C10 –postal receipt, Ex.C-11 – track report, Ex.C-12O(STR)- order dated 12.03.2020.
6. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite parties Nos1 & 2 have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 have rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite parties Nos.1 & 2
7. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 jointly & severally, are directed to pay Rs.18,64,621/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for
causing mental agony & harassment alognwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 09.06.2022. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
