Haryana

StateCommission

CC/312/2017

ANIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RASHMI DHILLON

14 Jul 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Consumer Complaint  No.312 of  2017

Date of the Institution:16.05.2017

Date of Decision:    14.07.2022

 

1.      Anil Kumar S/o Sh.Rajpal R/o # 710, Sector-8, Karnal (Haryana).

2.      Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh.Devi Singh R/o # 89, Swastik Kunj, Sector-13, Rohini, New Delhi (Presently residing at 710, Sector-8, Karnal (Haryana).

                                                                   .….Complainants

Versus

1. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi,  New Delhi-110001.
2. Manager, Site Office of Sushant City, Sector-12, Near Village Kheri Rangdan, Yamuna Nagar 135001 (M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd.).

                                                          .….Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Ms. Rashmi Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr.Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

O R D E R

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint  are that they (complainants) purchased plot No.0037-B-1136, Sushant City, Yamuna Nagar area measuring 209 sq. mtr from the opposite parties.   On 08.09.2011, the parties entered into an agreement. On 17.08.2011, they paid Rs.1,12,483/- as an advance amount alongwith the application form. The basic sale price of the plot was Rs.5740.8 per sq. mtr i.e. Rs.11,24,838/-, which includes preferential location charges.  As per the schedule, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.11,24,838/-. The complainants paid an amount of Rs.16,60,509/-  towards EDC, IDC  alongwith interest etc.  As the agreement, the OPs were supposed to hand over the possession of the plot within a period of 24 months.  More than five years have passed, but, the possession has not been delivered. Due to delay of project, the complainant lost interest in the plot and requested the OPs to refund the entire amount  i.e. Rs.16,60,509/- paid by them  vide letter dated01.04.2017, but, they did not consider the genuine request.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainants prayed that OPs be directed to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.16,60,509/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of deposit till its realization; Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension harassment, undue hardship and agony due to deficiency in providing the service and Rs.1,00,000/- for unfair trade practices.

2.      Notice of the complaint was issued against the O.Ps. and the reply was filed, wherein the O.Ps. admitted  to the extent that the complainants applied for allotment of a residential plot and OPs allotted the plot No.0037-B-1136 measuring 209 sq. mtr. situated at Sushant City, Yamuna Nagar and an agreement dated 08.09.2011 was executed between the parties. The basic sale price of the plot was Rs.11,24,838/- and in addition to the basic cost, the complainants were liable to pay other charges including the EDC/IDC was Rs.17,72,993/-.   As per agreement clause No.5.1, the OPs will offer the possession of the plot to the complainants after receipt of the total sale consideration of the plot.  It was submitted that the OPs  have almost completed the development work including laying out of roads, storm water, sewer  etc. except electrification work .  However, the OPs will offer the possession of the plot to the complainant after completion of the development work. The OPs were presently not  able to deliver the possession and execute the sale deed as the development work was adversely affected due to an interim injunction order dated 16.05.2012 passed by the court of Sh.Vimal Sapra, Ld. ADJ Yamuna Nagar in the Civil Suit titled Union Bank of India Vs. CBS Steel etc. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Other objections about  accruing cause of action, pecuniary jurisdiction , complainant not consumer, maintainability of complaint, , concealment of material facts, complaint is false and frivolous etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, one of the complainant-Anil Kumar in his evidence has tendered the affidavit Ex.CA vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.

4.                On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainants, O.Ps. have also tendered the affidavit of Mr.Naresh Pandey authorized representative Ex. RA and closed its evidence.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Ms.Rashmi Dhillon, the learned counsel for the complainants as well as Mr.Ajay Ghanghas, learned counsel for the opposite parties.  With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

6.                As per the basic averment taken in the complaint and the reply filed thereto including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainants are entitled to get refund of the amount which they had already deposited, alongwith the interest? 

7.                While unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Ms.Rashmi Dhillon, the learned counsel for the complainants that as far as the executing the buyers agreement  is concerned it is not in dispute.    It is also not in dispute that the basic price of the plot was Rs.11,24,838/-.    A total sum of Rs.16,60,509/- had been paid by the complainants to the  O.Ps.  As per the buyers agreement  and the terms and conditions incorporated therein including date of delivery of the possession of the plot was to be delivered to the complainants by the O.Ps.  within 24 months subject to some reservations.  The period within which, the possession of the plot was to be delivered had already expired despite depositing the amount of Rs.16,60,509/- including EDC IDC, interest and other charges.  In these circumstances the complainants had no other option, but, to seek the refund of the amount alongwith interest, which they had already paid. 

8.                On the other hand, it has been argued by Mr.Ajay Ghangas, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. that complainant has not paid the installment as per the repayment schedule.   The total cost of the plot including the EDC IDC was Rs.17,72,993/-. There was a delay in making the payment of the amount.  It is true that the documents were executed between the parties, which includes the buyers agreement, which contains all the terms and conditions for allotment of the plot, for payment of the installments, charging the interest for delayed payment and delivering of possession.  The OPs were presently not  able to deliver the possession and execute the sale deed as the development work was adversely affected due to an interim injunction order dated 16.05.2012 passed by the court of Sh.Vimal Sapra, Ld. ADJ Yamuna Nagar in the Civil Suit titled Union Bank of India Vs. CBS Steel etc.  Since, there were some unavoidable circumstances and certain reasons which were beyond the control of the O.Ps. and the possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainant in time.  However on one pretext or the other the possession was not delivered and now by taking the shelter of this Commission, the complainant seeks refund of the amount and infact this amount has already been invested for making all developmental activities.  As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the O.Ps. was bound  to deliver the possession of the plot within 24 months.  The answering O.Ps. have not committed any breach of agreement. The complainants have no right to demand the refund as builder has not refused to complete the development work and offer possession of plot to the complainants.    The answering O.Ps. will offer the possession of the plot to the complainant after completion of development work.   Thus, the complainants were not entitled for the refund as prayed for.

9.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that upon floating a project by the builders, plot was purchased by the complainants for a cost of Rs.11,24,838/- against which an amount of Rs.16,60,509/-  had been paid by the complainants, which includes EDC, IDC, interest and other charges.  Buyer agreement  is also not disputed.  As per buyer agreement, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within period of 24 months complete  subject to some reservation.   To the utter surprise of this Commission and is very pity that inspite of the fact that period of more than 11years had expired, the possession of the plot has not been delivered by O.Ps.  As such, there is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the buyers agreement on behalf of the O.Ps.   It is the normal trend of the developers/O.Ps. that  developer would collect their hard earned money  from  the  individuals and would invest the funds in other projects as a result thereof the project  for which the investors have invested their hard earned money is not completed.  Resultantly,  the delivery of possession or completion of the project is delayed as in the present case.  When the project is not complete as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service of opposite parties  and thus, complainants are well within their legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.16,60,509/- , which they had already deposited with the O.Ps.  Even otherwise also there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount and still deprived of not being put into possession of the same and under these constrained circumstances, he had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount.  In such like cases  the Commission had to deal with the developers/O.Ps. with severe hands who are misusing the funds of the individuals. As such the question is answered in the affirmative.

10.              In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint,  the O.Ps. are directed to refund of the amount of Rs.16,60,509/- (Sixteen Lac Sixty Thousand five Hundred and Nine Only)    alongwith interest @ 6%  per annum from  the date of respective deposits till realization.   In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period  of  30 days, in that eventuality, the complainants would further be entitled to get the interest @ 9% per annum, for the defaulting period.   The complainants are also entitled of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) for compensation of mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainants are also entitled of Rs.25,000/-  (Twenty /five Thousand Only) as litigation charges.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

 

July 14th, 2022      Suresh Chander Kaushik,                   S.P.Sood

                             Member                                              Judicial Member                                 

S.K.(Pvt.Secy)