Haryana

StateCommission

A/842/2015

ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KUSUM YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

PARDEEP SOLATH

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

Appeal No.842 of 2015

Date of the Institution:28.09.2015

Date of Decision: 02.11.2016

 

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. 15 UGF, Indra Prakash, 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 through its Assistant Manager (Legal) Sh. Manav Ujla.

                                                                                                .….Appellant

Versus

 

Kusum Yadav d/o Sh. L.C. Gandhi, R/o House No.499, Sector-20A, Chandigarh.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Narender Singh Yadav, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

1.      Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. - OP is in appeal against the Order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Kusum Yadav has been allowed directing the OP as under:-

“6) xxxxx. The impugned interest amount of Rs.1,17,397/- calculated on the due amount of Rs.60,545.81, is quashed and the OP is directed to offer the possession of the plot in question to the complainant within 45 days subject to depositing the due amount of Rs.60,545.81 by the complainant within 15 days, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The complainant is also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- alongwith litigation expenses which are assessed at Rs.11,000/- against the OP to be paid to the complainant within the above stipulated period of 45 days.”

2.      Briefly stated, originally plot No.A-170 was allotted by OP – Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. to one Rekha Arya on 04.03.2005 measuring 359 sq. yards @ of Rs.4500/- per sq. yards and the original allottee deposited a sum of Rs.4,72,500/- and thereafter the said plot was transferred in the name of complainant Kusum Yadav on 14.07.2007. Thereupon, the complainant made the entire payments in time and deposited a total sum of Rs.20,92,471/- and the external development charges to the tune of Rs.80,728/-@Rs.225/- per sq. yards as this amount was to be paid at the time of possession of the plot which has not been delivered to her as yet in spite of lapse of seven years.  The preferential location charges are illegal, excessive and not applicable on the complainant. Aggrieved against this act of the OP, the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the OP for interest @21% from September 1, 2008 till the date of possession and also for the return of preferential location charges @Rs.600/- per sq. yards.

3.      According to the OP, the complainant did not deposit the remaining dues even after repeated requests. The development work on the site had been completed and the Company was ready to deliver the possession, but, the complainant had not deposited the remaining amount i.e. Rs.60,538.81 along with interest to the tune of Rs.1,17,397/- On these basis, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. But the learned District Forum rejected their pleas and accepted the complaint vide order dated 21.08.2015.

4.      Against this Order of the learned District Forum, the OP has filed Appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has accepted the complaint without any legal justification. The appellant reiterating the submissions as made before the District Forum has stressed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

5.      Against this very order, the complainant came up in appeal before us in F.A. No.806/2015 on 24.09.2015 for the modification of order passed by the learned District Forum. This appeal was dismissed by us on 20.11.2015. The concluding portion of the order is reproduced as under:-

“6.     The order passed by the learned District Forum is factually and legally in order, as the reliefs granted are sufficient enough to meet the ends of justice, namely;

1. the interest amount demanded by the OP- respondent has been quashed
2. a direction has already been issued to offer the possession of the plot within a stipulated period of 45 days, subject to deposit of the amount of Rs.60,545.81 by the appellant – complainant and
3. the appellant has already been awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- alongwith litigation expenses as assessed Rs.11,000/-“.

6.                It is against this very Order that the present appeal has been filed by the OP. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. A fresh perusal of the record corroborates the same factual position and it supports the same conclusion, which we have already arrived at while deciding the earlier appeal filed by the complainant. There is clearly deficiency in service on the part of OP in delivering the possession of the plot to the complainant after such a long period and still claiming additional charges over and above, the actual amount payable by the complainant. Therefore, the learned District Forum rightly rejected this demand while passing the impugned Order. Hence, this appeal does not project before us any additional plea in support of their appeal. Consequently, this appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.  

7.      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.

November 02nd, 2016

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.