Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/195/2021

Rajesh Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rachit Kaushal

16 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/195/2021
Date of Institution	:	25.3.2021
Date of Decision	:	16/4/2024

 

RAJESH JAIN, S/O SH. S.C. Jain, RESIDENT OF 1-194, GARHWALI MOHALLA, LALITA PARK, LUXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI

 

...Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. through Its Chairman/Vice Chairman.

2. Sushil Ansal, Chairman, ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, a company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered office at 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16- Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110 001.

3. Pranav Ansal, Vice-Chairman, ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, a company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered office at 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16- Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110 001.

4. The Authorized Signatory, In-Charge of Business at Regional office, ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, S.C.O No. 12-A, Ansal City Centre, Kharar Landran Road, Sector 115, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

5. M/s ANSAL LOTUS MELANGE PROJECTS PVT. LTD., Having Its Regional Office At S.C.O No. 12-A, Ansal City Centre, Kharar Landran Road, Sector 115, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, through its Director/s, Authorized Signatory.

.  … Opposite Parties
 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rachit Kaushal, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Prateek Garg, Advocate for OPs No.1&4
	:	Complaint against OP No.2&3 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 9.4.2024.
	:	Complaint against OP No.5 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.11.2022

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated  the complainant initially registered a plot measuring 250Sq. yds in the future project of the OPs by paying Rs.12,40,000/-. However, the  OPs vide letter dated 14.1.2011 issued offer of allotment of plot in the project of OPs i.e. Ansal Golf Links Mohali. Thereafter a detailed Buyer agreement with nomenclature of an Allotment Letter dated 14.1.2011 was executed between the parties. As per agreement Plot No.556  was allotted to the complainant in the project of the OP No.1. The total sale consideration of the plot was Rs.31,00,000/-. It is alleged that the agreement does not contain any timeline stipulating the time frame within which possession would be offered by the company.  It is averred that the complainant has already made payment of Rs.44,78,750/-. It is alleged that since 15.4.2015 when the complainant made the last payment of the plot the complainant is running from pillar to post but the OPs have not handed over the possession of the plot.  It is alleged that the OPs have not obtained completion certificate and even after lapse of more than 10 years failed to handover the possession of the plot despite repeated requests made by the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&4 stated  that the possession of the plot in question has already been offered by the answering OPs on 18.01.2013 and same has been acknowledged by the complainant without any kind of objection or protest. He himself delayed in taking physical possession and making balance sale consideration. It is worth mentioning here that all the basic amenities are in place in the township where the plot in question situated and various families are residing in the township. The development in the sector has been undertook in the phased manner as per the approved layout plan and as per the guidelines and norms of the competent authority issued from time to time. Further the projects of the OPs covered under Mega Project Policy of the State of Punjab and as such same is exempted from the provisions of the PAPRA Act. As such offer of possession made by the  OPs  is genuine and legal. Till date the complainant never objected against the said offer of possession. It is alleged that the complainant is himself a defaulter in making the payment. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3.  The complaint qua Ops No.2&3 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 9.4.2024 in pursuance of separate statement of counsel for the complainant.
4. Complaint qua OP No.5 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.11.2022 in pursuance of separate statement made by the counsel for the complainant.
5. No rejoinder filed.
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. It is an admitted fact of the case that the  complainant has paid  the entire sale consideration to the tune of Rs.44,78,750/- on  various dates since year 2006. Annexure C-2 dated 14.1.2011  is the letter of offer of allotment sent by OP No.1 in which there is no mention of any timeline stipulated  within which period the possession was to be offered by the OP, which itself amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1&4. At the time of  executing allotment  agreement on 14.1.2011 since the complainant already paid Rs.12,40,000/- in 2006 itself, therefore, he was left with no other option but to sign the agreement and accordingly the complainant kept on paying the amount till 2015 as desired by  the OPs which is part of the record. The huge amount of the hard earned money of the complainant is lying with the OPs No.1&4  but they have not handed over the possession  to the complainant.
9. Moreso,  the complainant placed on record copy of partial  completion certificate drawing, map Annexure C-5 duly approved by the Chief Town  Planner, Department of Town & Country Planning Punjab dated 28.5.2014.   Admittedly,  the OPs No.1&4 did not have completion certificate till date  and as per case of the complainant the plot in question does not come under partial completion area in the said project of the OPs No.1&4. Thus, it is clear that the OPs No.1&4 have extracted money from the complainant without seeking the necessary approvals from the competent authorities, the aforesaid act of the OPs No.1&4 amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice.
10. The OPs No.1&4 have taken objection that the complainant has no cause of action as he has already been offered possession of the plot long back.  However, this defence of the OPs No.1&4 is also devoid of merits as it has come on record that the OPs No.1&4 have failed to deliver the lawful possession of the subject plot after obtaining completion certificate from the competent authority. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lata Construction &Ors. Vs. Dr. RameshchandraRamniklal Shah &Anr., AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC) wherein it was held that when possession of the residential units is not offered, there is continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee/buyer.  It has also been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Ajeet Ajay Estate and Resort Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dinesh, R.P. No.1978 of 2017 decided on 29.3.2019 that if the amount deposited lies with the builder and it has not returned the same, there will be continuing cause of action in favour of the complainants to file the consumer complaint. Thus the complaiant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
11. So far as the defence of the OPs No.1&4 that the consumer complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation is concerned, when it has come on record that the OPs have failed to deliver lawful possession to the complainant after obtaining necessary completion certificate from the competent authority and  further that OPs neither have delivered lawful possession of the fully developed plot to the complainant nor the amount deposited by her was refunded, therefore, there is continuing cause of action in favour of the complainant.  It was also held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of KNK Promoters & Developers v. S.N. Padmini, IV(2016) CLT 54 (NC) and Saroj Kharbanda v. Bigjo’s Estates Ltd., II(2018) CPJ 146 (NC) that the builder/OPs cannot withhold the amount deposited by the allottee and if it is so, there is continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee to file a complaint seeking refund of the said amount.
12. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.1814 of 2017 decided on 05.07.2018, held that non delivery of possession of plots/units in a developed project by the promised date is a material violation on the part of the builder and in those cases, allottees are well within their rights to seek refund of the amount paid. The above view is further supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018, decided on 02.04.2019 and also in Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’ Lima & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 442.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No.1&4 are directed as under:-

1. to refund Rs.44,78,750/- with interest @9% P.A. from the respective dates of deposit till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.      This order be complied with by the OPs No.1&4 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
16.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member