Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/500/2022

Dr. Sunanda Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Rajveer Anand

16 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	500 of 2022
Date  of  Institution	:	09.06.2022
Date   of   Decision	:	16.06.2023

 

 

 

 

Dr.Sunanda Arora, aged 62 years wife of Sh.Ram Kumar Arora, Resident of House No.F-52-C, GTB Enclave MIG Dilahad Garden, New Delhi-110095

Also at : # 2247, Sector 48-C, Star Enclave, Chandigarh

             …..Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1]  The Managing Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., 115, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001

2]  M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., 115, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001

    2^nd Address:-

M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh

3]  Pranav Ansal, Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., 115, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi

4]  Sushil Ansal, Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., 115, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi

5]  Yogesh Gaba, Chief Executive Officer, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., 115, Ansal Bhawan 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi

…….Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  MRS.SURJEET KAUR      PRESIDING MEMBER

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                    MEMBER          

 

Argued by :-   Ms.Chandni Bajaj, Adv. proxy for Sh.Rajeev Anand,                Counsel of complainant

   Sh.Prateek Garg, Counsel of OPs

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR,  PRESIDING  MEMBER

 

         Succinctly the case of the complainant is that she being allured by the advertisements as well as promises & assurance of OPs, booked a residential unit/flat in their project namely Ansal API Golf Links-II, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) and accordingly entered into Floor Buyer Agreement (Ann.C-1) on 10.10.2011 with the OPs No.1 & 2 for purchase of allotted Unit NO.264, Ground Floor (measuring 1395 sq. ft.), Victoria Floor, Golf Links-II, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab for a total price of Rs.48,56,240/- including External Development Charges and Preferential Location Charges.  It is stated that as per Clause 5.1 of the Agreement (Ann.C-1), the OPs No.1 & 2 were to complete their project and handover the built-up residential dwelling unit to the complainant within 30 months with an extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of agreement.   It is submitted that the complainant during the period from 5.9.2011 (date of allotment) till 23.5.2015 have made payment of Rs.40,28,450/- to the complainant per Transaction Statement/Customer Ledger issued by OPs dated 26.4.2017 (Ann.C-2) and receipts Ann.C-3.  It is also submitted that though the OPs were under obligation to deliver the physical possession of the Unit in question complete in all respect within a period of 36 months (including extended time of 6 months) as well as transfer its ownership in the name of complainant, but the OPs failed to failed to complete the development/construction work of the Unit in question in time and delivered its possession even till 4.4.2022.   It is asserted that the development work at the site is stopped since Jan., 2016 and as such the Unit in question is lying incomplete even after promised time period. It is submitted that the entire plans of complainant of getting the possession of Unit in question ruined beyond any stretch of imagination. Ultimately, the complainant requested the OPs to refund her amount but they kept on lingering the matter by taking one excuse or another and did not refund the amount.  The complainant even sent emails to the OPs in this respect but to no avail.  It I also asserted that the OPs have failed to complete the project and deliver the Unit in question to the complainant, complete in all respect, even after expiry of 10 years period nor they refunded her amount.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused financial loss, great mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant.  

 

2]       The OPs No.1 to 5 did not turn up despite service of notices, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 09.11.2022.           However, later on Sh.Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate appeared for the OPs on 2.1.2023 and joined the proceedings.  It is pertinent to mention that the OPs did not challenged the exparte order dated 09.11.2022 passed against them and preferred to file an application under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for stay, which too was withdrawn by ld.Counel for the OPs vide separate statement and as such stands dismissed per order dated 12.6.2023.

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of her contention.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.

5]       It is evident from the Floor Buyer Agreement (Ann.C-1) executed between the complainant & OPs on 10.10.2011 that the complainant was allotted Dwelling Unit No.264, GF, Victoria Floors, Golf Link-II, Sector 116, S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali by the OPs against total cost of Rs.48,56,240/- including EDC and PLC.  It is clear from Clause 5.1 of Agreement that the possession of the said Unit was to be delivered to the complainant within 30 months with an extended period of 6 months, from the date of execution of the agreement.  It is also proved from Ann.C-2 (Customer Ledger) issued by OPs in favour of the complainant that she had paid a total sum of Rs.40,28,450/- against the said Unit to the OPs during the period from Sept., 2011  till May, 2015.  

6]       The thorough perusal of the record reveals that the OPs No.1 to 5 failed to deliver the possession of the allotted unit to the complainant till filing of present complaint in the year 2022 despite receipt of about 90% of the cost of the Unit. The OPs No.1 to 5 failed to fulfil its contractual obligation by offering possession of the Unit to the complainant, having all basic amenities, within the stipulated time or within a reasonable time, so the complainant/ purchaser cannot be compelled to kept on waiting indefinitely that too even after passing of about 12 years period since the year of booking i.e. 2011.

7]       It is argued that the OPs No.1 to 5 were not having all the required sanctions from the competent authorities when they took the initial amount from the complainant.  It is proved that the hard-earned money of the complainant is in the possession of the OPs No.1 to 5 since long.

         It is settled law by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed: “It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers.

         The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal bearing No.342 of 2014 titled as “Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Karnail Singh & Ors.”, decided on 25.07.2014 has observed: “The appellants should have given firm date of handling over the possession at the time of taking the booking amount itself.  By not indicating the true picture with regard to their project to the respondents, the appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.”

         The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastruture vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed: - Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered.

8]       In our opinion a buyer/complainant to have a comfortable life and having paid his/her hard earned money to have a house, is not supposed to wait indefinitely for possession. Thus, the complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flat/unit allotted to her and she is fully entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by her along with compensation.

9]       The OPs have accepted the money, but failed to honour the commitment/promise made with complainant, so they are liable to refund the amount alongwith interest from the respective dates of deposit till payment. Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by OPs, is clearly established, which not only caused huge financial loss to the complainant, but also caused her immense harassment & mental agony.

10]      In the light of above observations, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainants and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 5.  Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed with direction to OPs No.1 to 5 to refund an amount of Rs.40,28,450/- along with interest @10% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till its payment. The OPs No.1 to 5 are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.Two lakh to the complainant towards compensation for causing her immense mental agony and harassment, along with litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 jointly & severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to refund the awarded amount of Rs.40,28,450/- along with interest @12% p.a. instead of @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till its payment, apart from paying litigation cost.

        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                                     

16^th June, 2023                                                                                                                        

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER