Haryana

StateCommission

A/1098/2017

M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVTAR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY GHANGAS

07 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1098 of 2017

Date of the Institution:11.09.2017

Date of Decision: 07.07.2022

 

 

1. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., 115 Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi having its office at Sushant City, Panipat through its authorized representative Sh. Parminder.
2. Sushant City, Kundli, District Sonepat, through its authorized representative Sh. Parminder.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

 

Avtar Singh S/o Late Kuljit Singh R/o H.No.18, Sector 23, Gurgaon (Haryana).

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Kunal Jain proxy counsel for Mr.Ajay Ghanghas, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr.Ajay Chhikara, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

 

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal No.1098 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 04.08.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short Now  “District Commission”) in complaint case No.76 of 2017, which was allowed.

2.      It was alleged by complainant that he applied for allotment of plot  in Sushant City, Kundli.  The OPs allotted a plot to him bearing No.2308, Block C in Sushant City, Kundli @ 2500/- per sq. yards (2990 per sq. meter) measuring 194 sq. yards type II (a).  On 10.07.2004, an agreement  was executed between the parties. The total cost of the plot was Rs.4,85,000/-.  As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, since the complainant paid Rs.4,85,000/- in one go so he was eligible for rebate to the extent of 7.5% i.e. Rs.30919/-.  As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant was entitled to the possession of the plot, but, opposite parties (O.Ps.) did not issue possession letter to him.  Despite several requests, the OPs have not handed over the possession of the plot and thereafter complainant filed the present complaint before District Commission as there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the O.Ps. by filing a separate written version before the District Commission, in which O.Ps. stated that  OPs alloltted the plot in Sushant City Kundli, Distt. Sonepat to him @ 2500/- per sq. yards. The total cost of the plot was Rs.4,85,000/- and last installment was payable at the time of possession. OPs sent letter dated 08.02.2008 through regd. post about the number and location of the plot was changed or modified as per Govt. instructions. OPs were ready to offer alternative plot or to refund the deposited amount, however, the complainant avoided the matter. It was further alleged that OPs were not in a position to offer the possession of the plot No.C-2308 or any alternative plot to him  as the layout plan of Sushant City, Sonepat has been altered/modified to some extent as per the Govt. Instructions. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

4.      After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned District Commission allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 04.08.2017 and directed the O.Ps. to deliver the possession  and further to pay interest  @ 9% per annum to him on the amount deposited on the respective dates w.e.f.01.01.2009 till the delivery of the possession of the plot to the complainant. The OPs were also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.20000/- for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

5.  Feeling aggrieved therefreom, O.Ps.-appellants have preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned order.

6.      The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Kunal Jain proxy counsel for Mr.Ajay Ghanghas learned counsel for the appellants  as well as Mr.Ajay Chhikara, learned counsel for the respondent.  All the documents with the appeal alongwith record of the District Commission have also been properly perused and examined.

7.      While raising the contention before this Commission, the issue which has been raised on behalf of the present appellants is that OPs were not in a position to offer the possession of the plot No.C-2308 or that of any alternative plot to him as the layout plan of Sushant City, Sonepat stood altered/modified to some extent as per the Govt. Instructions, so with all these things acting in the background, impugned order is not sustainable.

8.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that respondents allotted a plot No.2308 in Sushant City Kundli Distt Sonipat in favour of the claimant . On 10.07.2004, an agreement was executed between the parties.  Further argued that the total cost of the plot was Rs.4,85,000/-. The complainant deposited Rs.4,29,831/- and as per terms and conditions of the buyer agreement, the rebate of 7.5% i.e. Rs.30,919/- shall be given to the complainant.  Despite several requests, the OPs did not hand over the possession of the plot, which was illegal, unwarranted, unjust and against the law and principle of natural justice. Learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant.

9.      It is undisputed that the complainant booked a plot with the OP and paid Rs.4,85,000/-.  It is also not disputed that on 10.07.2004 an agreement was executed between the parties. It is also not disputed that the possession of the plot was not delivered to him despite repeated requests.  Perusal of Annexure A-2 Plot Buyer’s Agreement shows that the complainant opted schedule-I (Down Payment Plan with 7.5% Rebate), down payment plan is as under:-

SCHEDULE-1

(DOWN PAYMNT PLAN WITH 7.5% REBATE)

          PLAN A

1. At the time of Allotment                           10%   Rs.48,500/-
2. Within 45 days of allotment (less 7.5%)85% Rs.3,81,331/-
3. At the time of possession               5%     Rs. 24250/-

          Down payment rebate                         7.5%  Rs.30,919/-

                   As per Ex. C-5 and C-6, the complainant had paid Rs.72750/- and Rs.357081/-=4,29,831/-.   The complainant has paid maximum  amount to the OPs, but, the OPs did not give the possession of the plot despite several requests. 

10.              In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that upon floating a project by the builders, plot was purchased by the complainant for a cost of Rs.4,85,000/- against which an amount of Rs.4,29,831/-  had been paid.  Buyer agreement  is also not disputed.  As per buyer agreement, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within stipulated time subject to some reservation.   To the utter surprise of this Commission and is very pity that inspite of the fact that period of more than 18 years had expired, the possession of the plot has not been delivered by O.Ps.  As such, there is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the buyers agreement on behalf of the O.Ps.   It is the normal trend of the developers/O.Ps. that  developer would collect their hard earned money  from  the  individuals and would invest the funds in other projects as a result thereof the project  for which the investors have invested their hard earned money is not completed.  Resultantly,  the delivery of possession or completion of the project is delayed as in the present case.  Since the OPs already admitted in its reply that they were not in a position to offer the possession of the pot No.C-2308 as the layout plan of Sushant City, Sonepat has been altered/modified to some extent as per the Govt. Instructions. 

11.              In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the OPs-appellants are directed to deliver the possession of alternative plot to the complainant subject to his approval  at the same rate and same size within 30 days from passing this order instead of plot No.2308 Block C, in Sushant City, Kundli, if the plot already allotted to complainant does not exist in the modified layout plan. Rest of the impugned order passed by District Commission is justified. With the above modification, the appeal stands disposed off.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

07th  July, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)