Haryana

StateCommission

CC/601/2017

NARENDER MALIK AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

DEVENDER PUNIA

16 Aug 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Consumer Complaint  No.601 of  2017

Date of the Institution:22.09.2017

Date of Final Hearing:    16.08.2022

Date of pronouncement :21.11.2022

 

1. Narender Malik S/o Sh.Randhir Singh,
2. Wazir Singh S/o Sh.Kanhi Ram Punia,

R/o H.No.1161, Sector-7, Karnal.

                                                                   .….Complainants

Versus

M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. 115, Ansal B hawan, 16-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001.

Site office Sushant city, Village Sisali, Distt. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana).

                                                          .….Opposite Party

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Devender Punia, 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  the lot No.A-0377 measuring 420 sq. meter situated at Sushant City , Yamuna Nagar for an amount of Rs.38,71,729/-.  They appeared on the scene after they got the plot transferred from one Sh.Sulesh Kumar. The transfer letter was issued to them by the OP vide letter dated 02.07.2015. They paid all the installments to the opposite party in time. In total, the complainants had paid Rs.38,31,697/- to the OPs. For the transfer of the plot, the OP has charged an amount of Rs.14,316/-  towards administrative charges as well from them.  At the time of transfer, the OP assured that possession will be delivered at the earliest after completing the official formalities but till date possession of the plot has not been given to them. Due to delay of project, the complainants lost interest in the plot and requested the OP to refund the entire amount  i.e. Rs.38,316,97/-  and Rs.14,316/- paid by them but, OP did not consider the genuine request.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The complainants prayed that OPs be directed to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.38,316,97/- 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 physical harassment and Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation expenses.

2.      Notice of the complaint was issued against the O.P. and the written statement was filed, wherein the O.Ps. admitted that  the complainants have purchased the plot in resale from the previous allottee in the year 2015. The plot No.A-0377 was initially purchased by Sulesh Kumar and complainants have purchased the plot from him and on the request of complainants, the plot was transferred in their name on 02.07.2015. The payment of Rs.38,31,729/- was made by the initial allottee before the transfer of plot.  Further alleged that it was informed to the complainants that the OP were not able to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant and execute the sale deed as the development work was adversely affected due to an interim injunction order dated 16.04.2012 passed by the Court of Sh.Vimal Sapra, Ld. ACJ (SD) Yamuna Nagar in the 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. An injunction was granted by the court regarding a particular parcel of land situated in Sushant City, Yamuna Nagar.  As per agreement, the OP will offer the possession of the plot after completion of the development work and execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants. There was no delay on the part of the OP to complete the development work and offer the possession of the plot to the complainants. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3.      When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, complainant-Narender Malik 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-2 and closed his evidence.

4.      On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant, O.Ps. has also tendered the affidavit of Mr.Parveen Sheoran Authorised representative as Ex.RA and closed its evidence.

5.      The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Devender Punia, learned counsel for the complainants as well as Mr.Ajay Ghangas, learned counsel for the opposite party.  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 Devender Punia, 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 on 02.07.2015, the plot was transferred in the name of complainants.  It is also not in dispute that as per agreement, the basic price of the flat was Rs.25,11,600/-.  A total sum of Rs.38,31,729/-  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, the possession complete in all respect was to be delivered to the complainant by the O.Ps.  within stipulated time subject to some reservations.  The stipulated period within which, the possession of the plot was to be delivered had already expired despite complainants having depositing the amount of Rs.38,31,729/-.  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, learned counsel for the O.P. that complainants have not paid the installment as per the repayment schedule.  The complainants have purchased the unit in resale on 02.07.2015 from original allottee. The payment of Rs.38,31,729/- was made by the initial allottee before the transfer of plot.  Further argued that it was already informed to the complainants that the OP were not able to deliver the possession of the plot and execute the sale deed and development work was adversely affected due to an interim injunction order dated 16.04.2012 passed by the Court of Sh.Vimal Sapra, Ld. ACJ (SD) Yamuna Nagar in the Civil suit titled Union Bank of India Vs. CBS Steel etc.   Due to the above said reason, OP was unable to complete and deliver the possession to the complainants. There was no delay on the part of the OP to complete the development work and offer the possession of the plot to the complainants.  Since, there were some unavoidable circumstances and certain reasons which were beyond the control of the O.Ps. for which the possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainants in time.  However on one pretext or the other since the possession was not delivered so now by taking the shelter of this Commission, the complainants 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.P. was bound  to deliver the possession of the plot within the stipulated time.  The answering O.P. has 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 in question  to the complainants after completion of development work as well as after cancellation of stay in due course.   Thus, the complainant was 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 initial allottee for a cost of Rs.25,11,600/- against which an amount of Rs.38,31,729/- had already been paid.  Buyer agreement  is also not disputed.  As per buyer agreement, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within stipulated period subject to some reservation. It is also not disputed that the plot was transferred in the name of complainants in the year 2015, whereas the original allottee purchased the above said plot in the year 2011.  It is not disputed that transferee has also paid the charges of transfer to the OPs.   The plea of the OP that stay was granted by the court  in the year 2012 is not tenable because counsel has not produced on record any stay order regarding Ansal properties. To the utter surprise of this Commission and is very pity that inspite of the fact that period of more than 11 years 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 his legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.38,31,729/- (Thirty eight Lacs Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Nine Only)   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.P. is directed to refund of the amount of Rs.38,31,729/- (Thirty eight Lacs Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty 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 complainant 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. 

11.    Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms 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, 1986/2019. The 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.

 

November 21st, 2022      Suresh Chander Kaushik,          S.P.Sood

                                       Member                                    Judicial Member                                 

S.K.(Pvt.Secy)