Haryana

StateCommission

CC/136/2015

ANURAG GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

KARAN SINGH

13 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                             Consumer Complaint No.     136 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution                  07.08.2015

                                       Date of Decision                             13.02.2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anurag Gupta son of Dharambir Gupta, House No.1577, Old Grain Market, Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

                                      Complainant

Versus

 

1.      The Manager, Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Ansal Sales Office, Ansal Sushant City, Sector 12, HUDA, Near Village Kheri Rangran, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar, through Manager.

 

2.      The Managing Director, Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001.

 

2.      The Manager, Sales and Marketing Head, NH-1, Ansal Sales Office, Ansal Sushant City, Near Village Rasoi, Kundli, Sonepat NH-1, Haryana.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

 

 

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

                   Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                                               

 

Argued by: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for the complainant

                   Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the opposite parties

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          Anurag Gupta-complainant, has filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986) with the averments that Rajan Parkash son of Gulab Chand booked a residential plot in Sushant City, Yamuna Nagar of Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited-Opposite Parties (for short ‘the builder’).  Plot No.0037-B-1563 was allotted to him.  A Plot Buyer’s Agreement (Exhibit C-1) was executed between Rajan Parkash and the builder on March 24^th, 2011.   Rajan Parkash paid Rs.15,44,634/-, to the builder.  On January 30^th, 2012, the complainant paid Rs.15,44,634/- to Rajan Parkash and got the plot transferred in his name from the builder vide Exhibit C-2.  In all, Rs.37,27,660/- was paid to the builder upto March 02^nd, 2012 vide customer ledger Exhibit C-3.  The possession of the plot was to be handed over to the complainant after making the entire payment but the builder failed to do so. The complainant issued legal notice (Exhibit C-4) to the builder to handover the possession of the plot but the builder did not pay any heed.

2.      The builder, in its written version, resisted the complaint on various grounds including its maintainability. On merits, the builder denied the averments of the complaint and pleaded that the possession of the plot would be offered to the complainant after completion of the development work and after receipt of the total sale consideration of the plot.  The complainant was defaulter in making the payment.  

3.      The complainant Anurag Gupta in his evidence appeared as CW1 and produced following the documents:-

1.	Buyers Agreement	Exhibit C-1
2.	Letter dated February 02nd, 2012	Exhibit C-2
3.	Customer Ledger	Exhibit C-3
4.	Legal Notice	Exhibit C-4
5.	Affidavit	Exhibit C-5

 

4.      The builder, examined Parveen Sheoran-OP3 and produced the following documents:-

1.	Buyers Agreement	Exhibit OP-1
2.	Call Notice	Exhibit OP-2
3.	Affidavit	Exhibit OP-3

 

5.      The question arises for consideration is whether the builder defaulted in delivering the possession of the plot to the complainant or not?

6.      It is not disputed that the builder floated the project and they were bound to complete the development work within the stipulated period. The builder cannot raise plea that for want of certain approvals and non completion of development, the possession of the plot could not be delivered. When the builder invited the applications and collected huge amount from the public, they cannot delay the allotment/possession of the plot. Thus, delay/breach, if any, was on the part of the builder. Moreover, the builder in paragraph No.7 of the written version admitted that they did not offer the possession of the plot to the complainant till filing of the written version. It is clearly made out that the builder was at fault in non-performance of the services agreed. The builder could not deny the refund of the deposited amount sought by the complainant.  The complainant has paid Rs.37,27,660/- to the builder. The builder is a commercial organization and used the amount for promotion of its business.

7.      In view of above, the complaint is allowed.  Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited-builder is directed to pay Rs.37,27,660/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Only) to the complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid by the builder within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum, till realization and it calls for pointed notice that under Section 27 of the Act, if the builder fails or omits to comply with this order, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.          

  

Announced 13.02.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K