Delhi

StateCommission

FA/872/2013

VISHAL BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRA. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Sep 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 27.09.2017

 

First Appeal No. 872/13

(Arising out of the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1599/08)

 

 

        In the Matter of:

 

         

          Vishal Bansal

          S/o Sh. B.M. Bansal,

          R/o 406, Krishan Kunj,

          Flat No. 14, Sector-7,

          Dwarka- New Delhi-110075

……Appellant     Versus         1. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. Through Its Chairman Mr. Sushil Ansal, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001   2. Sh. R.C. Rungta Executive Director Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. 4th Floor Mayank Trade Centre, Station Road, Jaipur, 302006 (Raj)   3. HDFC Ltd. The Capital Court OLOF PALME MARG, Munirka, New Delhi- 110067                                                                            …….Respondent

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

        This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) wherein challenge is made to order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1599/08.

        Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that though the Ld. District Forum has dismissed the complaint, however, Ld. District Forum has not passed any order about refund of the money which the appellant/complainant had deposited with the respondent/OP.

        It is admitted position that Rs. 4,80,000/- was deposited by the appellant/complainant with respondent/OP. Out of the said amount Rs. 3,30,000/- was the loan amount advanced by respondent-2/OP-2 to appellant/complainant. Ld. counsel for the respondent-1/OP-1 states that since the cancellation was on the part of appellant/complainant, after forfeiture of earnest money, respondent-1/OP-1 is ready to return the balance amount.

        Ld. counsel for appellant/complainant submits that respondent-1/OP-1 cannot forfeit more than 10% of the price of the unit. It is stated that price of the unit was Rs. 12,00,000/- as such respondent-1/OP-1 cannot forfeit more than Rs. 1,20,000/-.

        Ld. counsel for appellant/complainant has relied upon the judgment of Harjinder S. Kang Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. decided by National Commission on 04.07.2016 in support of aforesaid stand.

        The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

        “13. The case of the opposite party is that as per Clause 2(f) of the Buyer’s Agreement, extracted hereinabove, 15% of the total sale price constitutes the Earnest money which they were entitled to forfeit. However, it has been held by this Commission in DLF Ltd. v. Bhagwanti Narula, I (2015) CPJ 319 (NC) Revision Petition No. 3860 of 2014, decided on 6.1.2015, that an amount exceeding 10% of the total price of the property cannot be forfeited as Earnest Money unless the opposite party can show that it has suffered loss to the extent of the amount actually forfeited by it. Applying the principle laid down in the above referred decision of this Commission, the opposite party could have forfeited only a sum of Rs. 12,77,475/- from the amount paid to it by the complainant. The balance amount of Rs. 71,97,275/- (84,74,750 -12,77,475) was required to be refunded to the complainant, which the opposite party has failed to do.”

 

        A noted above, respondent-1/OP-1 had received Rs. 4,80,000/- from appellant/complainant inclusive of loan amount.

        Nothing contrary is pointed out on behalf of respondent-1/OP-1.

                It is stated that the loan amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- has already been paid directly by respondent-1/OP-1 to respondent-3/OP-3. Counsel for respondent-3/OP-3 admits having received the aforesaid amount.

                Respondent-1/OP-1 has to return balance amount of Rs. 30,000/- to appellant/complainant.

                Counsel for the appellant/complainant states that even the interest on refund amount has not been paid. It is submitted that even to the bank, interest amount has not been paid.

                We find no reason as to why the respondent-1/OP-1 has not returned the amount with interest. the respondent-1/OP-1 has utilized the amount since long for its own purposes.

                In view of the above, we direct that respondent-1/OP-1 shall pay interest @ 9% per annum on Rs. 3,30,000/- to respondent-3/OP-3 from the date of cancellation of Villa i.e. 22.2.08 up to the date on which the amount was refunded to respondent-3/OP-3.

        Respondent-1/OP-1 shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 30,000/- to appellant/complainant with 9% interest from the date of cancellation of Villa i.e. 22.2.08 till the date of payment.

        The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

        A copy of the order be sent to the parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. The record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

        As prayed order is also given dasti.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member