View 956 Cases Against Ansal Properties
View 3606 Cases Against Properties
SUPRIYA RANI filed a consumer case on 13 Feb 2017 against ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is CC/135/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 03 Apr 2017.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Consumer Complaint No. 135 of 2015
Date of Institution 07.08.2015
Date of Decision 13.02.2017
Smt. Supriya Rani wife of Sh. Pardeep Kumar, resident of House No.297, Punjabi Mohalla, Radaur Road, Yamuna Nagar, Presently residing at House No.1994, Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.
Complainant
Versus
1. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Registered Office 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001, through Chairman Sushil Ansal.
2. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Ansal Sales Office, Ansal Sushant City, Sector 12, HUDA, Near Village Kheri Rangran, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar, through Manager.
3. Ansal Sales Office, Ansal, Sushant City, Near Village Rasoi, Kundli, Sonepat NH-1, Haryana through Manager, Sales and Marketing Head.
Opposite Parties
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.
Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.
Argued by: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for the complainant
Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the opposite parties
O R D E R
NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)
Supriya Rani-complainant, has filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986) with the averments that she booked a residential plot in Sushant City, Yamuna Nagar of Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited-Opposite Parties (for short ‘the builder’). A Plot Buyer’s Agreement (Exhibit C-1) was executed between the parties on March 24th, 2011. The complainant paid Rs.39,64,808/-, that is total price of the plot, to the builder vide receipts Exhibits C-2 to C-7. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to the complainant after making the entire payment but the builder failed to do so. The complainant issued legal notice (Exhibit C-9) to the builder to handover the possession of the plot but the builder did not pay any heed.
2. The builder, in its written version, resisted the complaint on various grounds including its maintainability. On merits, the builder denied the averments of the complaint and pleaded that the possession of the plot would be offered to the complainant after completion of the development work and execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant after receipt of the total sale consideration of the plot. The complainant was defaulter in making the payment.
3. The complainant Supriya Rani in her evidence appeared as CW1 and produced following the documents:-
1. | Buyers Agreement | Exhibit C-1 |
2. | Receipts | Exhibit C-2 to C-7 |
3. | Customer Ledger | Exhibit C-8 |
4. | Legal Notice | Exhibit C-9 |
5. | Affidavit | Exhibit C-10 |
4. The builder, examined Parveen Sheoran-OP4 and produced the following documents:-
1. | Buyers Agreement | Exhibit OP-1 |
2. | Call Notice | Exhibit OP-2 |
3. | Cancellation Letter | Exhibit OP-3 |
5. The question arises for consideration is whether the builder defaulted in delivering the possession of the plot to the complainant or not?
6. It is not disputed that the builder floated the project and they were bound to complete the development work within the stipulated period. The builder cannot raise plea that for want of certain approvals and non completion of development, the possession of the plot could not be delivered. When the builder invited the applications and collected huge amount from the public, they cannot delay the allotment/possession of the plot. Thus, delay/breach, if any, was on the part of the builder. Moreover, the builder in paragraph No.7 of the written version admitted that they did not offer the possession of the plot to the complainant till filing of the written version. It is clearly made out that the builder was at fault in non-performance of the services agreed. The builder could not deny the refund of the deposited amount sought by the complainant. The complainant has paid Rs.39,64,808/- to the builder. The builder is a commercial organization and used the amount for promotion of its business.
7. In view of above, the complaint is allowed. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited-builder is directed to pay Rs.39,64,808/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Eight Only) to the complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid by the builder within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum, till realization and it calls for pointed notice that under Section 27 of the Act, if the builder fails or omits to comply with this order, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
Announced 13.02.2017 | (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member | (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member | (Nawab Singh) President |
U.K
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.