Haryana

StateCommission

CC/140/2018

NAMITA SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

KARAN SINGH

12 Dec 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA            

  Date of Instituion:13.03.2018

                Date of final hearing:12.12.2022

                                                Date of pronouncement: 03.02.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.140 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      Mrs. Namita Sharma w/o Sh. Shri Yogesh Kumar

2.      Yogesh Kumar S/o Sh. Satyadev.

Both residents of House No.122/5, Sugar Mill Colony, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana), presently residing at House No.263, Sector-8, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                      .….Complainants

Through counsel Mr. P.S. Bedi, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., Ansal Sales Office, Ansal Sushant City, Sector-12, HUDA, Near village Kheri Rangran, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.
2. The Managing Director, Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Manager, Sales & Marketing Head, NH-1, Ansal Sales Office, Ansal Sushant City, Near Village Rasoi, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana.

….Opposite parties

Through counsel Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, Advocate

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for the complainants.

Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, 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 the complainants booked a residential plot in the project of opposite parties (‘Ops’) namely ‘Sushant City’ situated in village Ratoli, Kansapur and Kheri Rangran, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, Haryana. Ops allotted a plot bearing No.0037-A-0215 measuring 250 sq. yds. to the complainants. Basic sale price of the said plot was Rs.16,27,301.52 P and total price of the plot was Rs.22,83,957.7P. Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 13.12.2011. Complainants paid an amount of Rs.19,98,644/- to the Ops without any default as per table:-

Sr. No.	Cheque No.	Date	Bank	Amount
1	100696	09.11.2011	SBOP	Rs.1,50,000/-
2	100697	28.12.2011	SBOP	Rs.1,49,972/-
3	236167	27.01.2012	SBOP	Rs.1,50,000/-
4	88552	07.02.2012	SBOP	Rs.1,00,000/-
5	100701	24.03.2012	SBOP	Rs.1,50,000/-
6	236169	23.04.2012	SBOP	Rs.1,50,500/-
7	88558	07.06.2012	HDFC	Rs.1,50,000/-
8	236170	05.07.2012	SBOP	Rs.1,50,000/-
9	100705	28.08.2012	SBOP	Rs.1,50,000/-
10	236173	17.09.2012	SBOP	Rs.1,50,000/-
11	121877	15.11.2012	SBOP	Rs.1,37,043/-
12	121878	15.01.2013	SBOP	Rs.1,37,043/-
13	249616	15.12.2012	HDFC	Rs.1,37,043/-
14	249619	15.02.2013	HDFC	Rs.1,37,043/-
Total Amount    Rs.19,98,644/-

It is alleged that at the time of booking of said plot, it was assured by the Ops that the project in question would be facilitated with sewerage, link road, water supply, electricity as well as other basic amenities etc., but despite all these assurances OPs failed to develop the said residential colony. As per complainants, they visited the site many times and found no development even after their having paid more than 95% of the total cost as agreed between them. Complainants also made various representations with the OPs in this regard, but were not heeded. It is further alleged that finally complainants also requested the Ops to refund their deposited amount, but they even refused to do so. 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.19,98,650.4P alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of deposit till its realization; Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the Ops, upon which they appeared and filed their written statement. Ops in written statement submitted that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainants were not consumers but they were simply investors who had applied for plot in question for commercial purposes and not for residential purpose of their own. However, it was admitted that the plot bearing No.0037-A-0215 measuring 250 sq. yds. was infact allotted to the complainants and agreement in this regard was also executed on 13.12.2011. It was also admitted that Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 24.08.2012 also came into existence between the parties. It was further submitted that development work was adversely affected due to an interim injunction order dated 16.04.2012,passed by the ADJ, Yamuna Nagar in a Civil Suit titled “Union Bank of India Vs. CBS Steel etc.”, which was filed by the plaintiff bank regarding the amount borrowed by CBS steel. The collaborator of a part of land in Sushant City namely CMD stood as a guarantor for loan availed by CBS steel and injunction was granted by the court regarding that parcel of land situated in Sushant City, Yamuna Nagar.  Other allegations made in the complaints were also denied. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, so the complaint deserves dismissal.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, learned counsel for the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of Mr. Yogesh Kumar as 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-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainants.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/A of Shri Parveen Sheoran, Authorized Representative of OPs alongwith other document Ex.OP-1/1and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Karan Singh, learned counsel for the complainants and Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, learned counsel for Ops. 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 complainants, 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 or not? 

7.                While unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Mr. Karan Singh, learned counsel for the complainants that so far as the execution of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement Ex.C-1 is concerned, the same is not in dispute.  It is also not in dispute that complainants have paid Rs.19,98,650/- (Ex. C-3 colly) to the OPs. It is also not in dispute that the total sale price of the plot was Rs.22,83,957/-.  As per the Plot Buyer’s Agreement and the terms and conditions incorporated therein, complainants have paid 95% amount of total costs, but still Ops failed to offer the possession. The period within which, the possession of the unit was to be delivered had already expired despite complainants having deposited an amount of Rs. 19,98,650/-.  In these circumstances, the complainant were left with no other option, but, to seek the refund of the amount alongwith interest, which they had already paid, as they do not think that Ops will be able to put them into possession of the plot.

8.                On the other hand, it has been argued by Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, learned counsel for the OPs that the plot in question was purchased by the complainants not for personal use but the same was purchased for commercial purposes and to earn profit and not for residing there after raising their house and thus, complainants do not fall under the definition of “consumer”. It has further argued that the Plot Buyer Agreement was executed between the complainants and OPs and complainants have not complied with terms and conditions of the same and committed default in making timely payments. He further argued that the development work was adversely affected due to an interim injunction order dated 16.04.2012,passed by the ADJ, Yamuna Nagar in a Civil Suit titled “Union Bank of India Vs. CBS Steel etc.”, which was filed by the plaintiff bank regarding the amount borrowed by CBS steel. The collaborator of a part of land in Sushant City namely CMD stood as a guarantor for loan availed by CBS steel and injunction was granted by the court regarding that parcel of land situated in Sushant City, Yamuna Nagar.  The answering OPs have not committed any breach of agreement. The complainants have no right to demand the refund as builder has not refused to complete the developmental work and offer possession of plot to the complainants. Thus, the complainants are not entitled for the refund and interest as prayed for.

9.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, we find that it is not in dispute that upon floating a project by the Ops-builders, residential plot was purchased by the complainants for a total cost of Rs.22,83,957/- against which an amount of Rs.19,98,650/-  has already been paid.  Plot Buyer’s Agreement is also not disputed.  To the utter surprise of this Commission it is quite surprising as to how inspite of the fact that period of more than 10 years had expired, the possession of the plot has not been delivered by OPs.  As such, there is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the plot buyer’s agreement on behalf of the Ops. It is the normal trend of the developers 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 services of OPs and thus, complainants are well within their legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.19,98,650/-  (Rs. Nineteen lacs ninety eight thousand six hundred and fifty only)   which they have already deposited with the OPs. Even otherwise also there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainants for their having invested a huge amount and still deprived of not being put into possession of the same and under these constrained circumstances, they 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 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 Ops are directed to refund of the amount of Rs.19,98.650/-  ((Rs. Nineteen lacs ninety eight thousand six hundred and fifty only)   alongwith interest @ 9%  per annum from  the date of respective deposits till realization.  In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainants would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12 per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainants are also entitled of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) for compensation of mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainants are also entitled of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. 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.

11.              Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed off in erms of the aforesaid order.

12               A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 03^rd February, 2023                           

 

                                                                                                            S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 

           

 

                                                                                                S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                     Addl. Bench

 

R.K