Haryana

StateCommission

CC/483/2017

SUMAN LATA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

VIKAS DEEP

09 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Consumer Complaint  No.483 of  2017

Date of the Institution:10.08.2017

Date of Final Hearing:    10.08.2022

Date of pronouncement: 09.11.2022

 

Smt.Suman Lata W/o Sh.Kartar Singh, R/o H.No.3118, Sector 15, Sonipat, Haryana.

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

M/s Ansal properties & Infrastructure Ltd. Ansal Sushant City, village Rasoi, G.T.Road, Kundli, Sonepat-131028

Also at:

Regd. Office: 115, Ansal Bhawan 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001.

                                                          .….Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Viksdeep, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr.Ajy 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 complainant booked a unit No.704, Block 27, 7^th Floor, area 1665 sq. feet in residential colony “Green Escapaes Apartments-Sonepat  vide application dated 26.09.2011 with the opposite party. The basic price of the flat was Rs.30,80,250/-. An amount of Rs.1,57,978/- was deposited by the complainant through cheque. On 14.02.2012, the flat buyer agreement was executed between the parties. As per the buyer agreement, the OP agreed to give the possession of the unit completed in all respects was to be handed over within 42+6=48 months subject to some reservation.  In total, she deposited the total amount of Rs.31,57,436/-  by way of varying amounts from time to time. However, the receipts shows the deposit of total amount of Rs.31,55,029/-. The additional amount of Rs.2407/- was received on account of interest against which receipt was not issued by the OP.  The possession was liable to be handed over latest upto 13.08.2015 but OP was still not in position to hand over the possession of the flat in question. Due to delay of project, the complainant lost interest in the flat and requested the OPs to refund the entire amount  i.e. Rs.31,57,436/- paid by her but, they did not consider the genuine request.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainant prayed that OPs be directed to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.31,57,436/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of deposit till its realization.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the O.Ps. and the written statement was filed, wherein the O.Ps. admitted that unit was purchased by the complainant. As per the agreement, the complainant was liable to pay the  basic price of the flat i.e.Rs.30,80,250/- and other charges mentioned in the agreement The OP has rightly charged the EDC composite charges and car parking charges.    It was also submitted that she was not punctual in making the timely payment of demanded amount.  It was denied that possession was to be handed over upto 13.08.2015 and there was a default of 24 months.  It was clearly provide in clause NO.5.1 of the agreement that the company shall made every endeavor to complete the development work as far as possible within 42 months with an extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of agreement or from the date of commencement of construction of the particular tower in which the said unit was situated subject to sanction of the building plan whichever was later.  The construction commenced on 16.04.2014. The answering OPs are making every effort to complete the  development work and hand over the possession of flat within the agreed period and in case of any delay, the respondents shall pay and compensate at the agreed rate to the complainant for the period of delay. The complainant was not entitled for the refund of deposited amount with any compensation or damages. Other objections about  maintainability of complaint, accruing cause of action, pecuniary jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction time barred etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.  Thus there was no deficiency in service or any sort of unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, complainant-Mrs.Suman Lata in her evidence has tendered the affidavit Ex.CA vide which she has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed her 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.Naresh Pandey, authorized representative as Ex.RA and closed its evidence.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Vikasdeep, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Mr.Ajay Ghanghas, learned counsel for the opposite parties.  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 complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which she had already deposited, alongwith the interest? 

7.                While unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Vikasdeep, learned counsel for the complainant that as far as the execution of the buyers agreement  dated 14.02.2012 is concerned the same is not in dispute.    It is also not in dispute that the basic price of the flat was Rs.30,80,250/-.  A total sum of Rs.31,57,436/- had been paid by the complainant 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 flat, the possession complete in all respect was to be delivered to the complainant by the O.Ps.  within 42+6=48 months subject to some reservations.  This period within which, the possession of the flat was to be delivered had already expired despite depositing the amount of Rs.31,57,436/-.  In these circumstances the complainant 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 Ghanghas, learned counsel for the O.Ps. that complainant has not paid the installment as per the repayment schedule.  The complainant has purchased the unit  on her free will. There was a considerable delay in making the payment of the amount.  It is true that the agreement dated 14.02.2012 were executed between the parties, which includes the buyers agreement, containing all the terms and conditions for allotment of the flat, payment of the installments, charging the interest for delayed payment and delivering of possession. The construction started on 16.04.2014. Since, there were some unavoidable circumstances and certain reasons which were beyond the control of the O.Ps. and the possession of the flat could not be delivered to the complainant in time.  However on one pretext or the other the possession was not delivered and now by taking the shelter of this Commission, the complainant 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.Ps. was bound  to deliver the possession of the apartment within 48 months.  The answering O.Ps. has not committed any breach of agreement. The complainant has no right to demand the refund as builder has not refused to complete the development work and offer possession of flat to the complainant.    The answering O.Ps. will definitely offer the possession of the flat to the complainant after completion of development work.   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, unit was purchased by the complainant for a cost of Rs.30,80,250/- against which an amount of Rs.31,57,436/-  had been paid.  Buyer agreement  is also not disputed.  It is also not disputed that the complainant booked the unit in the year 2011. As per buyer agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within period of 48 months complete  in all respects subject to some reservation.   To the utter surprise of this Commission and is very pity that inspite of the fact that period of more than 10 years have gone by still possession of the flat 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, complainant is well within hers legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.31,57,436/- (Thirty One lacs fifty Seven Thousand Four hundred and thirty Six Only)   which she had already deposited with the O.Ps.  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.Ps. are directed to refund of the amount of Rs.31,57,436/- (Thirty One lacs fifty Seven Thousand Four hundred and thirty Six 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.     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, 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, 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.

 

November 09th, 2022      Suresh Chander Kaushik,          S.P.Sood

                                       Member                                    Judicial Member                                 

S.K.(Pvt.Secy)