Haryana

StateCommission

CC/34/2018

RAJESH PANDHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.C.GUPTA

28 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

 Date of Institution:23.01.2018

                Date of final hearing:28.04.2023

                                                 Date of pronouncement:28.04.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.34 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Rajesh Pandhi son of Shri Girdhari Lal Panchi resident of H.No.406, Green Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab.

 

                                                                                      .….Complainant

 

Through Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Advocate

 

Versus

 

 

1.      Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited having its registered office at 15, Ansal Bhawan, 16, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its authorized signatory.

2.      Ansal Properties SCO-136, Sector-17, HUD office, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

….Opposite parties

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Sudhir Gupta, advocate for the complainant.

None for the opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

Per Manjula, Member:

 

                    Brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that initially, one Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma applied for a resident plot. The Ops allotted a plot bearing No.0037-A-0441 measuring 420 sq. mtrs. to Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma against a total sale consideration of Rs.26,87,412/-. Plot Buyers Agreement in this regard was executed on 04.07.2011. Thereafter, Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma offered to sell the plot in question along with rights and liabilities as envisaged in Plot Buyers Agreement upon which the complainant moved an application to purchase the plot and the same was duly acknowledged and allowed by way of issuance of an endorsement by the Ops in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the Ops issued letter dated 28.08.2011 regarding transfer of the plot in the name of complainant with credit of amount of Rs.6,71,852/- which was already paid towards the cost of said plot and which was reimbursed by the complainant to the said Krishan Kumar Sharma. It is further submitted that the Ops promised that the possession of the plot would be delivered within 435 days of the booking on payment of remaining due amount with interest at the time of possession. The complainant had paid total amount of Rs.38,56,010.40p to the Ops. The complainant made several requests to the Ops for delivery of possession of the plot but the Ops did not consider his genuine request. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 31.12.2017 to the Ops regarding refund of Rs.38,56,010.40p but of no use. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The complainant prayed that the Ops be directed to refund Rs.38,56,010.40p which was deposited by him alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposits; to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; to pay Rs.2,00,000/-  as punitive damages due to non delivery of the plot and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses, and other reliefs as prayed for.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the Ops upon which the Ops appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; no jurisdiction; complaint is not maintainable etc. On merits, it is admitted that the plot No.0037-A-0441 was initially purchased by Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma and the basic cost of the plot was Rs.26,87,412/-. It is also admitted that the complainant purchased the plot from its previous allottee. It is further submitted that on request of complainant, the plot was transferred in the name of the complainant and an endorsement was made in the agreement in this regard. It is denied that the Ops promised to the complainant to deliver the possession within 435 days of booking. It is also denied that the complainant was ready to make the payment of balance amount as per agreement and visited the office of Ops many times. It is further submitted that the development work was adversely affected due to an interim injunction order dated 16.04.2012 passed by A.D.J. Yamuna Nagar. It is also submitted that the Ops will offer the possession of the plot to the complainant after completion of development work. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainant, counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex.CW1/A vide which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sumit Kumar, Authorized Representative Ansal Properties Infrastructure Limited as Ex.OPW1/A and closed the same.

4.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Sudhir Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant. With his kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

5.                As per the basic averments made in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he had already paid to the Ops, alongwith interest or not? 

6.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that the plot No.0037-A-0441 was initially allotted to Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma and the complainant has purchased the said plot from him and endorsement was made in the agreement in this regard. It is also not disputed that the basic cost of the plot was Rs.26,87,412/-. It is admitted that the Plot Buyers Agreement was executed on 04.07.2011 (Ex.C-1). The complainant sent a legal notice to the Ops regarding refund of the amount of Rs.38,56,010.40p (Ex.C-8). The complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.38,56,010.40p to the Ops as per the Customer Ledger (Ex.C-6) but no offer of possession has been made till date to the complainant. As such, there is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the Plot Buyers Agreement on behalf of the opposite parties.  When the project is not complete as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part  of the opposite parties and thus, complainant is well within his legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.38,56,010.40p which he had already deposited with the opposite parties. Even otherwise also, there is a strong element of mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount of his hard earned money but still remained deprived of the possession of the plot. Under these circumstances, he had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount. 

7.                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 the amount of Rs.38,56,010.40p (Thirty eight lakhs fifty six thousand ten and forty paise only) along with interest @ 12%  per annum from  the date of respective deposits till its realization. In case, there is a breach or delay in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days; in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 15% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.30,000/- (Thirty thousand only) as litigation expenses.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P. Act would also be attracted. 

8.                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.

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

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

 

Pronounced on:28^th April, 2023

                                                                            

                                                                                               

                                                                                      T.P.S. Mann

                                                                                      (President)        

 

 

 Manjula

(Member) 

 

                                                                                                           

 

                                                                                                           

M.S.