Haryana

StateCommission

CC/14/2015

SANTOSH CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

D.C.KUMAR

09 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No  :        14 of 2015

Date of Institution:   09.02.2015

Date of Decision :    09.10.2015

 

1.     Smt. Santosh Chaudhary wife of Shri Balram Chaudhry, Resident of R-193, Dera Baba Jaimal Singh Beas, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar.

 

2.     Shri Neeraj Chaudhary s/o Sh. Balram Chaudhary, Resident of H.No.176, Sector-10, Panchkula.

                                      Complainants

Versus

1.      M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructures Limited 115, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Director.

2.      Green Escape Kundli, Sonepat, District Sonepat through its Manager.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri D.C. Kumar, Advocate for Complainants.

Shri Subhash Chand, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Santosh Chaudhary and her son Neeraj Chaudhary-complainants booked a flat with M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructures Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘builder’)-Opposite Parties by paying Rs.3,50,000/- on June 9^th, 2006 vide receipt Annexure C-8. The total basic price of the flat was Rs.26,38,125/-. The complainants paid Rs.29,64,731/-. They were allotted flat No.2 measuring 1675 square feet on 12^th floor in “Green Escape” (a Group Housing Project of the builder) at Kundli, District Sonepat. As per Clause 12 of the Flat buyers’ agreement (Annexure C-1) the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 30 months from the date of the booking. The builder did not complete construction within the stipulated period. The complainants requested to refund the amount paid by them but to no avail. Hence, they filed complaint before this Commission.  

2.      In reply, the opposite parties stated that the complainants delayed the payment of instalments with respect to the price of the flat. They also did not come forward to sign the agreement. It was further stated that the possession would be offered and handed over within 4 to 5 months as the project was on the verge of completion.

3.      The complainants in their evidence tendered affidavit of Neeraj Chaudhary alongwith documents Annexure C-8 to C-16.  The opposite parties tendered affidavit of F.N. Rai, the authorized representative of opposite parties alongwith documents Exhibit RW-1 to Exhibit R-5.

4.      The question for consideration is as to whether the opposite parties defaulted in delivering the possession of the flat to the complainants or not?

5.      It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had booked the flat on January 9^th, 2006 by paying Rs.3,50,000/- vide receipt Annexure C-8. A perusal of the Flat Buyers’s Agreement (Annexure C-1) shows that the total basic price of the flat was Rs.26,38,125/-.  It is also not in dispute that the complainants paid Rs.29,64,731/- but still possession of the flat was not delivered though it was to be delivered within 30 months from the date of booking.  

6.      Clause 12 of the agreement (Annexure C-1) reads as under:-

“12.   That the Company shall endeavor to offer the possession of Apartment to Apartment Allottee within 30 months from the date of sanction of building plans by the authorities subject to force majeure circumstances and on receipt of all payments punctually as per agreed terms and on receipt of complete payment of the basic sale price and other charges due and payable upto the date of possession according to the payment plan applicable to Allottee. The Company on completion of the construction shall issue final call notice to the Apartment Allottee who shall within 30 days thereof, remit all dues and take possession of the Apartment. In the event of his failure to take possession for any reason whatsoever, he shall be deemed to have taken possession of the allotted Apartment from the date the same has been offered for purposes of payment of maintenance charges or any other levies on account of the allotted unit, but the actual physical possession shall be given on payment of all upto date outstanding payments as demanded by the company.”

7.      A perusal of the reply filed by the opposite parties shows that they had not completed the construction of flat even till July 22^nd, 2015, that is, when the reply was filed by them before this Commission. Relevant portion of the reply reads as under:-

“10.   …………….Moreover, it is submitted that the possession will be offered and handed over within 4 to 5 months as project is on the verge of completion……………….”

8.      In view of the above, it is established on the record that opposite parties were deficient in service for not delivering the possession of the flat even after more than 9¾ years of booking. The construction has still not been completed. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to get refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest.

9.      Accordingly, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.29,64,731/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of respective deposits till its actual realisation. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants.  

 

Announced 09.10.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL