Haryana

StateCommission

A/260/2016

BAL KISHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANSAL HOUSING - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI KANT

25 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      260 of 2016

Date of Institution:      28.03.2016

Date of Decision :      25.05.2016

 

Bal Kishan s/o Sh. Lok Chand, Resident of Kailash Nagar, Rewari Road, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Ansal Housing and Construction Limited through its authorised signatory, Village Piwara, Sector 10, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari.

2.      Ansal Housing and Construction Limited, through its Managing Director Office, 15 UGF, Inderparkash, 21 Bara Khamba Road, Delhi.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This complainant’s appeal has been preferred against the order dated February 11^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.479 of 2011.

2.      Bal Kishan-complainant/appellant, booked a residential plot admeasuring 320 square yards, with Ansal Housing and Construction Limited-Opposite Parties/respondents. The basic sale price of the plot was Rs.21,60,000/-. The appellant paid Rs.3,20,000/- at the time of booking. The name of the project of the builder was ‘Ansal Town, Rewari’. The respondents asked the appellant to deposit Rs.12,55,269.50 out of which he deposited Rs.12,51,005/-. He was allotted plot No.A-48, Ansal Town, Rewari, however, it was admeasuring 460.45 square yards instead of 320 square yards and also demanded the price of the excess area of the plot.  The appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the respondents to allot a plot of 320 square yards or to refund the amount deposited by him alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and Rs.1.00 lac as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony etc.

3.      The respondents/opposite parties in their reply pleaded that at the time of booking it was made clear to the appellant that the area of the plot was tentative and this fact was clearly mentioned in the application (Exhibit C-1) for booking of the plot. So, the appellant was liable to pay the price for the excess area of the plot. Denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing the respondents as under:-

“……the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund the entire deposited amount i.e. Rs.3,20,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.12,51,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of their respective deposits till payment maximum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the amount shall fetch penal interest @ 12% p.a. after the expiry of two months till payment. The complainant is also allowed compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- against the opposite parties.”

5.      The submission made on behalf of the appellant is that possession of a plot admeasuring 320 square yards in Ansal Town, Rewari be delivered to the appellant.

6.      The submission made is not convincing. Indisputably, the complainant had booked a plot of 320 square yards with the respondents for Rs.21,60,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the area of the plot was tentative. The appellant paid to the respondents Rs.3,20,000+2,00,000+12,51,000/- i.e.  Rs.17,71,000/-. The appellant was allotted plot No.A-48 in Ansal Town, Rewari, the area of which was 460.45 square yards instead of 320 square yards. Demand of the price for the excess area being raised by the respondents, the appellant sought direction to the respondents to allot the plot of 320 square yards or in the alternative to refund the amount deposited by him. Due to non-availability of the plot of 320 square yards in the same project, the District Forum directed the respondents to refund the amount alongwith interest and compensation, detailed in the preceding para.

7.      We have perused the booking form Annexure A-4/Exhibit C-1. It specifically finds mention that area is tentative. Besides complainant in his complaint in the prayer (B) has prayed that if the opposite party cannot allot plot of 320 square yards, the amount be refunded. The District Forum has sufficiently redressed the grievance. 

8.      In view of the above, there is no illegality in the order passed by the District Forum. No case for interference is made out.  Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 25.05.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL