Haryana

StateCommission

A/599/2016

SHAM KUMARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

ADITYA BHUSHAN

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.599 of 2016

Date of Institution: 04.07.2016

                                                          Date of Decision: 28.11.2017

 

Sham Kumari W/o Sh.Rames Kumar R/o H.No.53/2, Moti Lal Gali, Thetheran Mohalla, District Kurukshetra presently R/o H.No.C 371, Sector-29, Jindal Global City, Kurukshetra.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

1. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, SCO No.62-P Sector-17, Near Petrol Pump, through its Assistant Sales Manager.
2. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Managing Director/Manager.
3. Surindera & Company Property Advisor, Pipli road, Kurukshetra through its proprietor.

         …..Respondents

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Satinder appellant in person.

                   Mr.Ajay Ghangas, Advocate counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          As per  complainant she booked a plot with opposite party (O.P.) Nos.1 and 2 and paid Rs.2,28,400/- on 12.08.2007.  Plot No.4322 Block E was allotted to her.  An agreement was executed in between them on 03.08.2007 and the price was fixed as Rs.16,24,168/-. She was to deposit this amount in 10 installments of Rs.1,62,416.80 ps. each. Excess amount deposited by her alongwith application was to be adjusted qua remaining payment. As plot No.4322 was not suitable, so she requested O.Ps. to allot plot No.4313 in the same block.  Officials of O.P. assured to accept her request and to issue allotment letter lateron, but, instead of  issuing allotment letter they issued letters about payment of remaining amount or cancellation of Plot No.4322. She sent  request in writing also but no heed was paid to the same. They offered to allot plot No.4312 instead of 4313.  Representation dated 24.04.2010  on her behalf was sent by her  son alongwith cheque of Rs.25,00,000/- , but, to no use. Ultimately she requested to refund the amount deposited by her, but, said request was not accepted.  So  O.Ps. be directed to refund the amount deposited by her alongwith interest and compensation as prayed for.

2.      O.Ps. No.1 and 2 filed joint reply controverting her averments and alleged that  schedule of payment was mentioned in agreement dated 03.08.2007. She did not adhere to the financial discipline and that is why notices were issued to her time and again.  Finding no other alternative her allotment was cancelled. She intentionally gave cheque of Rs.25/- lacs knowing it fully well  that there was not sufficient amount in her account. She asked their office not to present cheque for encashment.  They never assured her to allot an alternative plot. Representations sent by her were false and frivolous.  She was supposed to pay Rs.20,57,000/- whereas she deposited Rs.2,28,400/- only.  As she was chronic defaulter, so she was not entitled for refund of amount in question.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated  17.05.2016.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal. 

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that  she requested to allot plot No.4313 instead of plot No.4322 and sent representation to this effect. Officials of O.Ps. assured to allot another plot, but, to no use. Application Ex.C-11 was submitted on her behalf by her son alongwith cheque of Rs.25,00,000/-, copy of which is Ex.C-12, but, O.Ps. did not submit that cheque for encashment. There is no evidence on the file showing that there was not sufficient amount in her account.  It cannot be alleged that she was chronic defaulter. Learned District forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects. So impugned order dated 17.05.2016 be set aside and complaint be allowed.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force. As per schedule Ex.C-4 the payment was to be made as mentioned below:-

“Plan C
1	With application of allotment	10%	Rs.1,62,416.80
2	Within 2 months of allotment	10%	Rs.1,62,416.80
3	Within 4 months of Allotment	10%	Rs.1,62,416.80
4	Within 6 months of Allotment	10%	Rs.1,62,416.80
5	On laying of road in front of the plot*	10%	Rs.1,62,416.80
6	On laying of storm Water Drain in front of the plot*	10%	Rs.1,62,416.80
7	On Laying Sewer Line in front of the plot*	10%	Rs.1,62,416.80
8	On Laying of Water Line in front of the plot*	10%	Rs.1,62,416.80
9	On Laying of Electric Cable in front of the plot*	10%	Rs.1,62,416.80
10	At the time of possession	10%	Rs.1,62,416.80

 

8.      Except  making initial payment she did not pay even a single penny. As per clause 5 of agreement Ex.C-3 timely payment of installment was essence of contract. In case of default of payment the entire earnest money was liable to forfeiture.  For ready reference clause 5 of this agreement is  reproduced as under:-

“The timely payment of installment as stated above is the essence of this contract. It shall be incumbent on the Buyer to comply with the terms of payment and the other terms and conditions of this Agreement failing which the entire amount of earnest money deposited by him shall be liable for forfeiture and the Agreement shall stand cancelled and the shall be left  with no right or lien on the plot. The amount(s), if any, paid over and above the earnest money shall be refunded to the Buyer without any condone the delay in payment by charging an interest @ 20% p.a. on the amount outstanding.”

When the complainant did not deposit remaining installments letters dated 03.0-8.2009 Ex.C-6, 07.08.2009 Ex.C-7, 14.02.2009 Ex.C-9 and 05.04.2010 Ex.C-10 were sent to deposit the amount, but, to no avail. When she did not clear the remaining dues O.Ps. were having every authority to cancel allotment. It cannot be opined that there is any fault on their part. As per Application Ex.C-11 complainant requested to change the plot, but, it does not mean that if that request is not acted upon, she was entitled for refund of the amount. If O.Ps. did not present cheque for encashment, it does not mean that there was any fault on their part.  It is specifically mentioned in this letter that this  cheque was issued for plot No E 4312 and not for plot No.E4322.  When plot No.4313 was not allotted to her then where was the occasion for the O.Ps. to submit the same for encashment. Had it been done then she would have alleged that plot No.4313 was allotted to her.  O.ps. have acted as per terms and conditions of agreement Ex.C-3 and cannot be presumed that there is any fault on their part.  The findings of learned district forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

November 28th, 2017		Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.