Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi filed a consumer case on 13 Feb 2020 against M/s Ansal Hi Tech Townships Ltd in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/449/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Feb 2020.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI(DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,
I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.
Case No.CC. 449/2017 Dated:
In the matter of:
Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi,
S/o Late Surendra Nath Chaturvedi,
R/o B-106, Mehdauri Colony, Teliarganj, Allahabad,
Uttar Pradesh-211004
....COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
M/s Ansal Hitech Township Ltd.
115, Ansal Bhawan, 16,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001
.....OPPOSITE PARTY
PRESIDENT- ARUN KUMAR ARYA
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had booked a flat in the project of OP and was allotted flat bearing no. L-0201F, Ground Floor, Corner Side, Bharosa LIG, Greater Noida, U.P. The complainant had also paid Rs. 50,000/- to the OP as booking amount. It is alleged that OP assured the complainant that the possession of the said flat was to be given till 2014, but Till date the construction work of the said project/flat has not been completed. The complainant had also paid to the OP a total sum of Rs. 2,41,072/- at different interval of time on the assurance of the OP. It is alleged that the complainant had visited the office of the OP several times to hand over the possession of the said flat but no satisfactory reply. The complainant had also filed written complaint before the OP regarding the same but nothing has been done, hence this complaint.
Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP but none appeared and therefore, OP was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte on 29/08/2018.
Complainant has filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint. File is perused.
From the un-rebutted testimony of the complaint and documents placed on record, we are convinced that the submissions put forth by the complainant are true. Bare perusal of the complaint and its annexures shows that complainant booked a Plot in a project of OP bearing no. L-0201F, Ground Floor, Corner Side, Bharosa LIG, Greater Noida, U.P. The complainant had paid Rs. 50,000/- to the OP as booking amount. It is further alleged that OP assured to the complainant that it will hand over the possession of the said flat till 2016, but dill date the construction work of the said project/flat has not been completed. The complainant had paid to total sum of Rs. 2,41,072/-. The OP neither completed the project nor refunded the deposited money of the complainant. Since the OP has not handed over possession, therefore, the cause of action is recurrent.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meerut Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ12(SC), held that in such a case the buyer has a recurrent cause for filing a complaint for non-delivery of possession of the plot.
In view of above discussion, We hold the OP to be guilty of deficiency in service and direct as under:-
i) OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 02,41,072/- along with simple interest @9%p.a. from the date of making last payment i.e. 06/03/2014 till the date of realization.
ii) Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards harassment, mental agony and pain including the cost of litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost by post.
Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in.
File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Forum on13/02/2020.
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(NIPUR CHANDNA) (H M VYAS)
MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.