Haryana

Sonipat

340/2014

Rajat Sachdeva s/o Ashok Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ravi Shanker Garg & Ashish Garg

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.340 of 2014

                                Instituted on:11.12.2014

                                Date of order:03.12.2015

 

Rajat Sachdeva son of late Sh. Ashok Sachdeva, resident of 2209, Gali Hinda Beg, Tilak Bazar, Delhi-110006.

    

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., 155, Ansal Bhawan, 16 KG Marg, New Delhi-110001

Also at Ansal Sushant City, Ansal Sales Office, Kundli, Sonepat.

 

                                           ...Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. RS Garg Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Mannu Malik, Adv. for respondent.

          

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that in the year 2006, the respondent has launched a residential group housing project  namely Escape Green at Sonepat and in September, 2006, Jai Lal Mann booked a flat in the aforesaid project  and deposited Rs.2,50,000/-.  But due to some unavoidable circumstances, he assign all the rights in favour of the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant has deposited huge amount with the respondent from time to time. The total sale consideration of flat is Rs.21,99,375/- being the basic cost for area 1275 Sq. feet at the rate of Rs.1725/- per sq. feet.  Flat was booked in 2/2006 and till 12/2007, more-than 40% payment i.e. Rs.8,57,757/- is received by the company.  But the respondent has intentionally delayed the execution of flat buyer agreement.  In the year 2009, the complainant visited the site and found that there is no construction work.  The complainant sent a letter dated 26.3.2009 to the respondent whereby he informed the respondent that there is inordinate delay in construction/development of flats and thus, to compensate him.  In the month of 3/2011, the complainant visited the office of the respondent where the respondent assured that the possession of flat will be given very soon upto 6/2011.   The complainant further vide letter dated 21.9.2013, 16.10.2013 and 9.12.2013 requested the respondent for offer of possession of the flat and also demanded for compensation.  Earlier the respondent has sent a flat buyer agreement to previous booking holder Jai Lal Mann wherein para no.12 it is specifically mentioned that possession of apartment will be given within 30 months from the date of sanction of building plans by the concerned authority.  The respondent has failed to offer the possession of the flat and also failed to pay compensation for delay in construction of the project. The complainant also served the respondent with legal notice whereby the respondent was requested to complete the construction work, to give the possession of the flat and to pay penalty of delay construction alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.8,57,757/- from 3/2009 till date, but the said legal notice has not brought any fruitful result and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that many letters were written by the respondent to the complainant for making the payment of outstanding dues, but of no use and thus, the respondent have proceeded according to the terms and conditions for allotment of the unit and cancelled the allotment of unit. It is admitted that Jai Lal Mann booked a flat in Green Escape, Sonepat and deposited Rs.2,50,000/- which was later on transferred in favour of the complainant.  It is also admitted that the payment of Rs.857757/- was made by the complainant.  The agreement was entered between the original allottee Jai Lal Mann and the respondent.  The allotment of the flat has already been cancelled due to the default of the complainant in making timely payment. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the pleadings of the complainant’s complaint, reply filed by the respondent, entire relevant documents placed and evidence led by both the parties in support of their case, the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief against the respondent as has been claimed by him by way of present complaint.

          The complainant in support of his case has tendered the documents Ex.CW1/B1 to L2.

Similarly the respondent in support of his case has tendered the documents Ex.R1 to 11.

          We have also perused the contents of the rejoinder filed by the complainant in support of his case.  It is submitted in the rejoinder that the respondent raised the demand of installments and the same were duly paid by the present complainant.  The respondent has admitted that an amount of Rs.8,57,757/- has already been paid by the complainant.  The respondent has intentionally delayed in execution of flat buyer agreement, construction and offer of possession of flat.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case law titled as Satish Kumar Pandey Vs. Unitech, 2015(2) CLT page 648 (NCDRC).

          The respondent in their written statement has mentioned that flat buyer agreement was executed between the respondent and original allottee Jai Lal Mann and later-on flat was transferred in the name of the complainant and endorsement was made in this regard in agreement dated 6.4.2007.  Further  no cancellation letter was ever sent to the complainant and copy of the same not filed in the present case.  The respondent has admitted that they have received the legal notice, but despite receiving the legal notice, no reply was sent by the respondent.

          It is pertinent to mention hereby that the complainant has filed the present complaint containing 13 pages and similarly the respondent has filed 11 pages reply to the complaint and it would be repetition, if the contents of the complaint or reply are mentioned in the concluding paras.  So, instead of mentioning the contents of the complaint or reply in the concluding para, we have decided to dispose off the present complaint after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after considering the pleadings of the complainant’s complaint, reply filed by the respondent company and evidence led by both the parties very carefully and minutely  to avoid any injustice with any party.

          After doing so, we are of the view that there is a force in the present complaint and arguments advanced on the basis of the pleadings of the complaint by the learned counsel for the complainant and we have come to the conclusion that the respondent not only caused a huge financial loss to the complainant, but has also caused the unnecessary harassment, mental agony by rendering deficient services to the complainant.

          In our view, the complainant cannot be kept in the hands of the respondent builder for an indefinite period particularly when they are utilizing the huge deposited amount  of the complainant without providing him any services.  In our view, if the respondent builder is exonerated from his liability, it will be a great injustice with the complainant who even after depositing a huge amount with the respondent, is roaming here and there for taking shelter. In our view, the complainant as per his pleadings has been able to prove that there is patent deficient in service on the part of the respondent and thus, it is held that the complainant is definitely entitled to get some suitable relief against the respondent.

          Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is as to for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

          The complainant in view of the present complaint has sought the relief to direct the respondent

          To pay the amount of Rs.862044/- as delay penalty/compensation calculated from 3/2009 to 9/2014 i.e. interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the deposited amount i.e. Rs.857757/-,

          To direct the respondent to adjust the aforesaid penalty/compensation for delay construction and possession of flat in balance sale consideration of flat and further to hand over the possession of the flat to the complainant,

          To direct the respondent to pay delay penalty/compensation from the date of filing the complaint till the date of possession of flat,

          To compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5 lacs for mental agony and harassment, and deficiency in service,

          To direct the respondent to execute the flat buyer agreement with the present complaint.

          In our view, the act & conduct of the respondent itself amounts to a deficiency in service on their part because the document Ex.CW1/B3 i.e. letter  dated 6.4.2007 written by the respondent to the complainant shows that the respondent has written to the complainant regarding transfer of flat no.280104 Green Escape, Sonepat and it has also been mentioned in the said letter that “This is to confirm that the flat no.280104 admeasuring 1275 sq. feet situated at Green Escape, Sonepat which was in the name of Jai Lal Mann, resident of Sector 15, Sonepat stands transferred in your name and the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- stand credited to your account”.  But despite this, the respondent never made any efforts to execute the buyer agreement with the present complainant and there is also nothing on record to show that the respondent ever made any efforts to hand over the possession of the flat to the complainant particularly when the respondent has already received the huge amount of Rs.8,57,757/- from the complainant and the said amount of the complainant is being utilized by the respondent for their personal gain. 

          We find force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and in our view, the respondent is liable for their own acts and deeds.

          In our view, the complainant is also entitled to get interest at the rate of 09% per annum on the amount of Rs.857757/- w.e.f. 3/2009 till handing over the possession of the flat to the complainant. The respondent is also directed to execute the flat buyer agreement with the complainant and to hand over the physical possession of the flat in question to the complainant.

          The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, which in our view is on a very higher side.  However, since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, we hereby direct the respondent to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.five thousand for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary harassment and further to pay Rs.two thousand to the complainant under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

 

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

 

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)    (DV Rathi) (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF    Member DCDRF     DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 03.12.2015