Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/588/2020

Mr. Suresh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amarbir Dhaliwal

09 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	588 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	28.10.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	09.02.2022

 

 

 

 

1]  Mrs.Suresh Sharma s/o Sh.Hari Ram, R/o Ganesh Vihar Colony, Kilroo, Palampur, Distt. Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

2]  Mrs.Neena Sharma W/o Mr.Suresh Sharma, R/o Ganesh Vihar Colony, Khilroo, Palampur, Distt. Kangra, Himachal Pradesh

             …..Complainants

 

Versus

1]  Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., through its MD/Director.

Regional Office: SCO No.183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, above British Library, Chandigarh.

Corporate office: H.No.115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.g. Marg, new Delhi 110001

Head office: Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001

2]  Pranav Ansal, Managing Director of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.,

Corporate Office: H.No.115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G.  Marg, New Delhi 110001

    Head Office: Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001.

3]  Sushil Ansal, Director of M/s Ansal properties & Infrastructure Ltd.,

    Corporate Office: H.No.115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G. Marg, New Delhi 110001

    Head Office:-    Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001.

4]  HDFC Ltd., through its M.D./Director, Registered Office: Roman House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020

    Regional Office: SCO 78 & 79, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160018

    ….. Opposite Parties 

[2]

Consumer Complaint  No	:	589 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	28.10.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	09.02.2022

 

 

 

 

1]  Mr.Surender Kumar Soni S/o Late Sh.Ram Chand, r/o Village Manjhot, P.O.- Ropa, Distt. Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh

2]  Mrs.Ranjana Soni W/o Mr.Surender Kumar Soni, R/o Village Manjhot, P.O.- Ropa, Distt. Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh

             …..Complainants

 

Versus

1]  Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., through its MD/Director.

Regional Office: SCO No.183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, above British Library, Chandigarh.

Corporate office: H.No.115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G. Marg, new Delhi 110001

Head office: Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001

2]  Pranav Ansal, Managing Director of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.,

Corporate Office: H.No.115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G.  Marg, New Delhi 110001

    Head Office: Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001.

3]  Sushil Ansal, Director of M/s Ansal properties & Infrastructure Ltd.,

    Corporate Office: H.No.115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G. Marg, New Delhi 110001

    Head Office:-    Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001.

4]  HDFC Ltd., through its M.D./Director, Registered Office: Roman House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020

    Regional Office: SCO 78 & 79, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160018

    ….. Opposite Parties 

[3]

Consumer Complaint  No	:	590 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	28.10.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	09.02.2022

 

 

 

 

1]  Mrs.Rekha Sandeep W/o Sandeep Kumar, r/o House No.39/5, Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh

2]  Mr.Sandeep Kumar W/o Puran Singh, R/o House No.39/5, Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh

             …..Complainants

 

Versus

1]  Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., through its MD/Director.

Regional Office: SCO No.183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, above British Library, Chandigarh.

Corporate office: H.No.115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G. Marg, new Delhi 110001

Head office: Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001

2]  Pranav Ansal, Managing Director of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.,

Corporate Office: H.No.115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G.  Marg, New Delhi 110001

    Head Office: Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001.

3]  Sushil Ansal, Director of M/s Ansal properties & Infrastructure Ltd.,

    Corporate Office: H.No.115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G. Marg, New Delhi 110001

    Head Office:-    Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001.

4]  HDFC Ltd., through its M.D./Director, Registered Office: Roman House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020

    Regional Office: SCO 78 & 79, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160018

    ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

        SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                    MEMBER          

 

 

Argued by :-   Sh.Amarbir Dhaliwal, Adv. for the complainants.

                Sh.Rajiv K. Bhatia, Adv. for OPs No.1 to 3

    Ms.Neetu Singh, Adv. for OP No.4.

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         By this common order, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned three consumer complaints in which similar questions of law and facts are involved.

2]       The facts are being taken from the present “Complaint Case No.588 of 2020 – Suresh Sharma & Anr. Vs. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.”.

3]      Briefly stated, the complainants being allured by the false promises & assurance of OPs, booked an independent floor/flat measuring 1245 sq. ft.  in the project of OPs i.e. Ansal Golf Links-II, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) by making application dated 6.3.2012 and made payment of booking amount of Rs.6,11,445/- (Ann.C-1) against the total cost of the Unit of Rs.40,87,500/-.  Accordingly, the OPs were allotted Floor No.194, First Floor, Victoria Floor, Golf Links-II, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab to the complainants vide Allotment Letter Ann.C-2.  It is also stated that the complainants have availed a housing loan from OP No.4 and as per the Loan Agreement (Ann.C-3) executed between the complainants and OPs, the Pre EMI Interest was supposed to be paid by the OPs, but still they did not pay the charges as per the schedule, resultantly, the CIBIL Score of the complainants got drastically fallen (Ann.C-4), so they could not avail any loan facility for education of their children nor were provided the Unit/Flat.  It is submitted that the entire plans of complainant and their family has been shattered to ground and ruined beyond any stretch of imagination. It is also submitted that the complainants kept on paying the installments as per demands of OPs and as such had made payment of Rs.36,66,007/- to the OPs against the Unit in question till the date of filing the complaint, out of which Rs.9,11,445/- has been paid by complainant and Rs.27,54,562/- has been disbursed/paid by OP NO.4 Bank.  It is pleaded that the complainant repeatedly requested the OPs to inform about the status of the project as well as to execute the Buyers Agreement, but they did not pay any heed.  It is also pleaded that in Sept., 2020 when the complainants visited the project of the OPs, they were shocked to see that the construction works were still pending and entire project was way behind schedule.  It is further pleaded that the OPs have miserably failed to develop the project in time, neither any basic amenities/facilities have been provided at the project site nor the possession of the flat has been offered till date and there is no likelihood of the same being developed in near future.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused great mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainants.  

 

2]       The OPs No.1 to 3 have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the answering OP received the booking amount prior to agreement and the agreement was also executed within time.  It is denied that the OPs have failed to develop the project in time or basic amenities or facilities there.  It is denied that the entire project is incomplete and abandoned.  It is submitted that in view of the express mandate of Clause 5.1 of the Floor Buyer Agreement which gave a tentative period of 12 months with an extended period of 6 months for delivering possession of the Allotted Unit from the date of allotment, which as stipulated therein, would run from the date all requisite sanctions/approvals/permissions/clearances from the Government/Local Authorities/ Sanctioning Authority were received subject to force majure circumstances. It is also submitted that as per Clause 5.1 of the Floor Buyer Agreement, the possession of the Unit was proposed to be deliverd within 12 monthts time with an extended period of six months from the date of execution of the agreement or the date of sanction of building plan/allotment after all necessary approvals and sanctions had been obtained from Government/Local Authorities.  It is further submitted that had time been the essence of the contract then the phrase “as far as possible” would not have been used and instead a definite period would have been given for deliver of the possession.  It is stated that the basic infrastructure is complete in all respect. The OPs have also raised objection about territorial jurisdiction.  It is also stated that the apartment booked by the complainant was under subvention scheme and the bank has contributed towards sale consideration and till date the answering OP continued to pay Pre EMI interest to the said bank on the advanced amount. It is further stated that the Unit in question is almost complete and only statutory clearances are being awaited from the concerned authorities. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as well s other allegations, the OPs No.1 to 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

         OP No.4-HDFC Bank has filed short reply stating that the rights of the parties to the present complaint are governed by Tripartite Agreement (Ann.OP-4/1) and the answering OP reserves its right to proceed in accordance with the terms of Loan Agreement.  It is submitted that answering OP has funded the Unit in question purchased by the complainants and they have availed loan of Rs.29,38,200/- out of which an amount of Rs.27,54,562/- stands disbursed. It is also submitted that the complainants loan is under subvention scheme wherein the OPs No.1 to 3 and the complainants entered into an agreement whereby the liability to pay EMIs for the period of 24 months was upon OPs No.1 to 3.  Denying other allegations being not related to, the OP No.4 has prayed for dismissal of complaint qua it. 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainants controverting the assertions of OPs.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.

6]       The perusal of the record reveals that the OPs No.1 to 3 did not deliver the possession of the allotted flat/unit to the complainants despite receipt of more than 90% of the amount of the flat. The OPs No.1 to 3 failed to fulfil its contractual obligation by offering possession of the Unit to the complainants, having all basic amenities, within the stipulated time or within a reasonable time, so the complainants/purchasers cannot be compelled to kept on waiting that too much after the agreed period.

7]       Pertinently, the OPs No.1 to 3 were not having all the required sanctions from the competent authorities when they took the initial amount from the complainants.  It is evident from Ann.C-1 that the hard-earned money of the complainants is in the possession of the OPs No.1 to 3 since the year 2012. 

         It is settled law by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed: “It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers.

         The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal bearing No.342 of 2014 titled as “Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Karnail Singh & Ors.”, decided on 25.07.2014 has observed: “The appellants should have given firm date of handling over the possession at the time of taking the booking amount itself.  By not indicating the true picture with regard to their project to the respondents, the appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.”

         The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastruture vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed: - Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered.

8]       Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to collect the money before getting all the necessary approvals for the project and not giving the confirm date of handling over possession of the plot in question certainly proves deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice. 

9]       A buyer/complainants to have a comfortable life and having paid his/her hard earned money to have a house, is not supposed to wait indefinitely for possession. Thus, the complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them along with compensation.

10]      The OPs have accepted the money, but failed to honour the commitment/promise made with complainants, so they are liable to refund the amount alongwith interest from the respective dates of deposit till payment. Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by OPs, is clearly established, which not only caused huge financial loss to the complainants, but also caused them immense harassment & mental agony.

11]      The loan agreement was executed with OP No.4 at Chandigarh in respect of the Unit in question, so there Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try & adjudicate this complaint. Further, the complainants have neither been delivered the possession of Unit nor refunded the amount thereof by the OPs, therefore, the cause of action is recurring one.

12]      In the light of above observations, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainants and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint as well as other connected complaints, referred to above, having similar facts, deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.  Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed with direction to OPs No.1 to 3 to refund an amount of Rs.36,66,007/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till its payment.

         Similarly, the connected C.C.No.589 of 2020 -‘Mrs.Surender Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.’ also stands allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to refund an amount of Rs.38,54,398/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till its payment.

         Similarly, the connected C.C.No.590 of 2020 -‘Mrs.Rekha Sandeep & Anr. Vs. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.’ also stands allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to refund an amount of Rs.38,58,732/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till its payment.

         The OPs No.1 to 3 are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to each of the complainants towards compensation for causing them immense mental agony and harassment, along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- in each case.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.25,000/- in each case, apart from the above awarded amount.

13]      A copy of this order be placed in connected consumer Complaint Complaint No.589 of 2020 -  Surender Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.  AND Complaint No.590 of 2020 -‘Mrs.Rekha Sandeep & Anr. Vs. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.’

        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                                     

9^th February, 2022                                                                                                                             sd/-

                                      (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER