DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1128 of 2018
Date of institution: 30.10.2018 Date of decision : 08.09.2020
Naveen Sharma aged 47 years son of Late Shri Bihari Lal, resident of Flat No.107, Sector 17-G, Vasundra, Ghaziabad (UP) and also at 34-GF, Eldico Estate, G.T. Road, Jalandhar Bye Pass, Ludhiana.
Mobile No.85878-88582
E-mail ID: aveensarma1972@gmail.com
…….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Ansal Lotus Melange Project Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at A-1/18-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi -110002 through its Managing Director.
2. M/s. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd. having branch office at SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Shri Inderjit, Member
Present: None for the complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short). The CC has alleged in the complaint that he had applied for the apartment with the OPs known as “Celebrity Suits” in the proposed complex of the OPs known as “City Centre” situated at Kharar Landran Road, SAS Nagar vide application dated 08.03.2013. It is alleged that the OPs had allotted an apartment bearing Unit No.C-403 measuring 627 sq. ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.18.81 lakhs calculated @ Rs.3,000/- per sq. ft. It is alleged that the OPs vide letter No.C-413 dated 08.04.2013 confirmed the allotment letter to the CC wherein it was agreed to allot one room set having a kitchen, balcony and a bathroom which could also be used as living room. The same could also be used for leasing out or rented out to third party at par with hotel services in a way. It was also agreed that the CC was also at liberty to lease out the same of his own or by availing services of management agencies. Further the management agencies were also to provide 24 x 7 services including reception, valet parking, housekeeping, laundry, limited room service etc. besides maintaining the building. It is alleged that the company was claiming to have owned and possessed various land parcels situated in and around village Sante Majra and Chappar Chiri situated on Kharar – Landran Road, SAS Nagar. It was also claimed by the OPs that the company had obtained sanctions of various plans and the said parcel of land situated in Village Sante Majra bearing Khasra No.45//5 (8-0), 6 (8-0), 44/1 (8-0). 42//21/2 (1-7), 22/1 (1-7), 23/1/2 (0-5), 44//2 (7-18), 3/1 (1-16), 9 (0-10), 10 (6-0), 26/2 (0-12), 41//16/2 (1-5), 24/2 (2-10), 25 (8-0), 15 (2-2) was to be developed as City Centre.
It is further alleged by the CC that vide allotment letter, mode of payment was also settled, which is as under:
A. Down Payment Plan | |
1. At the time of the booking 2. Within 30 days of booking/ allotment (discount of 10% on 80% payment). 3. At the time of offer of possession | 15% 80% 5% + Stamp duty + any other charges as applicable. |
DESCRIPTION | PAYMENT |
At the time of booking | 5% of BSP + Stax |
Within 45 days from the date of booking | 7.5% of BSP + Stax |
Within 90 days from the date of booking | 7.5% of BSP + Stax |
Within 135 days from the date of booking | 7.5% of BSP + Stax |
Within 180 days from the date of booking + Club Membership charges | 7.5% of BSP + Stax + 50000 + Stax |
On starts of construction of 2nd floor | 5% of BSP + Stax |
On completion of 2nd Floor Roof slab | 10% of BSP + Stax |
On completion of 3rd Floor Roof slab | 10% of BSP + Stax |
On completion of 4th Floor Roof slab | 10% of BSP + Stax |
On completion of internet plaster | 10% of BSP + Stax |
On completion of finishing of common area | 10% of BSP + Stax |
On completion of all services | 5% of BSP + Stax |
At the time of possession | 10% of BSP + Stax + Stamp duty + any other charges (As applicable). |
It is further alleged by the CC that the following payments were made by him to the OPs:
i. | Date of payment : 08.03.2013 Booking + S.Tax 93113 + 3452 | Rs.96,565/- |
ii. | Date of payment : 10.05.2013 Installment + S.Tax @ 3.708% 136031 + 5044 | Rs.1,41,075/- |
iii. | Date of payment : 25.06.2013 Installment + S.Tax @ 3.708% 146869 + 5046 | Rs.1,52,315/- |
iv. | Date of payment : 27.11.2013 Installment + S.Tax + Interest 3,76,387 + 13956 + 5000 | Rs.3,95,343/- |
v. | Date of payment : 10.02.2014 Installment + S. Tax 188074 + 6974 | Rs.1,95,048/- |
| Total | Rs.9,80,346/- |
It is further alleged by the CC that at the time of agreement the OPs had agreed to handover the possession to the CC in the month of October, 2014, but despite his repeated requests and meetings, possession was not handed over to him. On 17.09.2016 the CC visited the office of the OPs, where he was subjected to insult etc. It is alleged that the CC also sent a number of emails to the OPs to cancel his booking since there was an inordinate delay of 2 years in delivery of possession. Legal notice dated 01.10.2016 was also served upon through Advocate calling upon OPs to return back the amount paid by the CC alongwith interest, but of no use.
Thus alleging deficiency and malpractice on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought the following reliefs:
(i) Compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith refund of amount paid by the CC to the tune of Rs.9,80,346/- for which he has also sought interest @18% per annum.
(ii) Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
The complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply the OPs have chosen to remain ex-parte. It is important to mention here that the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 08.04.2019 and 25.11.2019 of this Commission.
3. Since entire evidence of the CC is on the file and the OPs are already ex-parte, we feel, that no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties if the present complaint is decided on merits. Otherwise also the present Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act which is enacted to provide speedy justice to the parties. Further the present grievance of the CC appears to be an old one, and Commission is duty bound to decide the matter in a speedy manner.
4. Since the OPs remained ex-parte, this Commission has no alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint which are duly supported by an affidavit and various other documents. Otherwise also allegations in the complaint as well as in the affidavit appear to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. It is on the file that the CC had paid an amount to the tune of Rs.9,80,346/- on various dates to the OPs. In support of his claim, the CC has annexed various receipts which are Ex.C-2.
5. It is writ large on the file that at the time of agreement the OPs had agreed to handover the possession of the apartment to the CC in the month of October, 2014 but despite repeated requests of the CC, the OPs failed to handover the possession to the CC in time. In this regard the CC had also sent a number of emails to the OPs requesting them to handover the possession of the property as agreed upon but every time the request of the CC fell on the deaf ears. Even CC also sent a legal notice dated 01.10.2016 with the request to refund the amount deposited by the CC within 15 days, but there was no response from the side of the OPs. There are specific allegations of the CC that around the complex, the OPs were supposed to develop City Centre for which they were claiming to have their project passed from the Govt. Since there is no evidence in rebuttal against the evidence of the CC and moreover the Consumer Protection Act is a welfare legislation, accordingly it is held that amount of the CC to the tune of Rs.9,80,346/- deserves to be refunded to the CC, as allegations are proved to be correct.
6. Consumer Protection Act, envisages a different system of dispensation of justice. This Act is passed with a view to provide a better protection to the Consumers. In this case it is writ large that the OPs failed to provide possession to the CC in the year 2014. It is also on the file that as per their plans the OPs failed to develop the City Centre around the complex where the flat was allegedly allotted to the CC.
7. Accordingly the present complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to refund to the CC the amount to the tune of Rs.9,80,346/- (Rs. Nine Lakhs Eighty Thousand Three Hundred Forty Six only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the dates of various deposits till realisation. The OPs are further burdened to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) to the CC and also Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) as litigation expenses. Free certified copies of the orders be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record in accordance with rules.
Announced
September 08, 2020
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
(Inderjit)
Member
