Haryana

StateCommission

A/322/2016

ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAL KISHAN - Opp.Party(s)

PARDEEP SOLATH

28 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    322 of 2016

Date of Institution:    12.04.2016

Date of Decision :     28.07.2017

1.     Ansal Housing & Construction Limited 15 UGF, 21 Bara Khamba Road, Indraprakash, New Delhi-110001 through its authorised representative Sh. Manav Ujla.

2.     Ansal Housing and Construction Limited through its authorised signatory Village Piwara, Sector-10, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Bal Kishan s/o Sh. Lok Chand, Resident of Kailash Nagar, Rewari Road, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Pardeep Solath, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Pardeep Sehrawat, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated February 11^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari   (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Bal Kishan-complainant (respondent herein) was allowed.

2.                As per version of the complainant he got booked a residential plot bearing No.A-48, measuring 320 square yards in Ansal Town, Rewari, Haryana, a project floated by Ansal Housing & Construction Limited-Opposite Parties, vide application dated 30^th January, 2006 (Exhibit C-1). Basic Sale Price of the plot was Rs.21,60,000/-.  The complainant paid Rs.3,20,000/- at the time of booking.  Plot No.A-48 was allotted to the complainant vide letter dated 9^th August, 2007 (Exhibit C-2). Thereafter, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs. Again after receiving letter dated 9^th August, 2007, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.12,51,005/- on 30^th August, 2007. Vide letter dated 01^st March, 2008, the complainant was informed that the area of the plot is 460 square yards instead of 320 square yards. The opposite parties raised demand of excess sale price amount due to increase of 140 square yards area of the newly allotted plot. As per version of the complainant due to his financial problem, he was not in a position to purchase a plot measuring 460 square yards and he had applied for purchase of a plot measuring 320 square yards. In this way, it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is prayed that the opposite parties be directed to allot and deliver possession of plot measuring 320 square yards in the project and in the alternative, the opposite parties be directed to refund the total amount deposited by the complainant with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1.00 lac as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony.

3.                The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. It is admitted fact that in the beginning an amount of Rs2.00 lacs was deposited by the complainant as booking amount for allotment of a plot measuring 320 square yards (tentative size) in the project of the opposite parties at Rewari. In fact, in the letter dated 28^th January, 2008, size of the plot as 320 square yards was mentioned as tentative. Vide letter dated 9^th August, 2007, the opposite parties informed the complainant regarding allotment of plot No.A-48, measuring 460 square yards. The complainant is bound to accept allotment of that plot as at the time of booking of the plot, area of the plot was mentioned only tentative. The opposite parties had right to increase the area of the plot. It is also admitted fact that an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs and Rs.12,51,005/- as mentioned in complaint was deposited by the complainant from time to time. The opposite parties have charged sale price amount of increased area at the booking rate of Rs.7050/- per square yards with a discount of Rs.300/- per square yards. The complainant did not make payment of the remaining sale price amount despite letters written to him and finally a letter dated 25^th October, 2010 was sent to the complainant for clearance of the dues. As the remaining sale price amount was not paid, the allotment of the plot was cancelled on 19^th May, 2011. The refund against cancellation of the plot was also sent to the complainant vide order dated 11^th July, 2011. That plot has already been sold to M/s M.G. Chemoil Private Limited. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with cost.

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

5.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated 11^th February, 2016, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties to refund the entire deposited amount of Rs.3,20,000/-; Rs.2.00 lacs and Rs.12,51,005/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of realisation. The opposite parties were directed to make payment of the above mentioned amount within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% per annum after expiry of two months period till the total amount is paid. The opposite parties were also directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony and an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

6.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 11^th February, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the opposite parties have filed the present appeal bearing No.322 of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

7.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

8.                It will be pertinent to mention here that earlier complainant-Bal Kishan had filed First Appeal No.260 dated 28^th March, 2016 against the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum with a prayer to modify the order and to direct the opposite parties to allot and deliver possession of a plot measuring 320 square yards in Ansal Town, Rewari.   That First Appeal No.260 of 2016 was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 25^th May, 2016. The findings given by the learned District Forum were affirmed.

9.                It is admitted fact that in the beginning, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.3,20,000/-  for booking of a plot measuring 320 square yards in a project started by the opposite parties at Rewari. It is also admitted fact that thereafter the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs and Rs.12,51,005/- as mentioned in the complaint up to 30^th August, 2007. It is also admitted fact that the Basic Sale Price of the plot was Rs.21,60,000/-. The dispute arose in between the complainant and the opposite parties as the opposite parties allotted another plot No.A-48, measuring 407.45 square yards instead of earlier allotted plot measuring 320 square yards. Version of the opposite parties is that area of 140 square yards of the plot has been increased by the opposite parties because at the time of booking area of the plot was mentioned as 320 square yards tentatively. The opposite parties had right to increase or decrease area of the plot in terms of the letter dated 30^th January, 2006 (Exhibit C-1) issued by the opposite parties. Version of the complainant is that his financial position does not allow him to purchase a plot measuring 460 square yards and he had booked a plot measuring 320 square yards.  Although in the booking column (Exhibit C-1), it is specifically mentioned that the area is tentative, but we feel the complainant cannot be compelled to purchase a plot measuring 460.45 square yards area instead of 320 square yards area of plot. The complainant cannot be un-necessarily burdened to pay so much amount which appears to be beyond his capacity by increasing area of the plot.

10.              From the pleadings and evidence on the file it is clear that the plot which was initially allotted to the complainant has been allotted by the opposite parties to a firm.  The complainant has been allotted another plot bearing No.A-48 and area of this plot is 460.45 square yards. In such type of projects and transactions, it is not uncommon that the builders sometimes, to earn more money, allot a plot already allotted to some other person and compel the original allottee to purchase another plot. We can understand the difficulties of the complainant. He may be able to collect money and make payments in time of the total sale price of the plot measuring 320 square yards but it may not be possible for him to arrange money to make payment of the sale price of a plot measuring 460 square yards. A person always wants to purchase a plot and construct his house as per his financial position as well as sources of income. Keeping in mind all these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum appears to be justified.

11.              The findings of the learned District Forum regarding compensation amount, litigation expenses and rate of interest are also justified. Resultantly, we find no illegality or invalidity in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. Moreover, findings of the learned District Forum of the same order have already been affirmed by this Commission vide order dated 25^th May, 2016 while deciding First Appeal No.260 of 2016. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.

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

 

Announced: 28.07.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL