ORAL
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 39 OF 2022
- Anita Prakash
W/o Sri Tarun Prakash Srivastava
- Tarun Prakash Srivastava
S/o Sri Manoj Prakash
Both R/o C-3263, Rajajipuram
Lucknow-226017
...Complainants
Vs.
M/s Ansal Property & Infrastructure Limited
Through its Chairman (Sri Shushil Ansal)
Office at 2nd Floor, Shopping Square-II
Secdtor-D, Shushat Golf City
Lucknow-226030
...Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
For the Complainant : Sri Sanjeev Bahadur Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Sri Asif Anish, Advocate.
Dated : 05-01-2023
JUDGMENT
PER MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
Heard Sri Sanjeev Bahadur Srivastava, learned Counsel for the complainants.
On behalf of opposite party, M/s Ansal Property & Infrastructure Limited Sri Asif Anish, learned Counsel appeared.
The instant complaint has been filed under Section-47 (1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with the following relief/prayer:-
“Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble State Commission may kindly be pleased to allow the present complaint by ordering & directing the opposite party:
- To honour the agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof by providing the physical possession of villa free from all encumbrances immediately completing all the formalities legal in nature alongwith compensation for delay or in alternatively, to refund the entire amount of loss of Rs.23,69,660.02 (as articulated
-
in para no.11 of the complaint) to the complainants alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till the date of actual payment, as compensation.
And
- To award cost in favour of the complainants.
And/Or
- To pass any such other and further order which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of ijustice.”
The submission of learned Counsel for the complainant is that in pursuance of a Residential Scheme introduced by the opposite party an amount of Rs.18,14,660/- has been deposited by the complainants with the opposite party on 16-06-2012. According to the condition stipulated in the brochure and the scheme introduced by the opposite party, the opposite party was supposed to deliver the possession of the allotted flat to the complainants in a reasonable time. The reasonable time has not been described by the opposite party which itself clearly indicates the illintention of the opposite party and according to this Court the same is, therefore, covered under the heading of Unfair Trade, therefore, the instant complaint is maintainable before this Court.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that since the amount has been paid by the complainants long back in June, 2012 to the tune of Rs.18,14,000/- which must have been utilized by the opposite party, however, on account of non delivery of the allotted unit to the complainants, the complainants not only suffered mental agony, financial hardship but also physical torture.
The submission of Counsel for the complainants is that for the reason of aforesaid a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has to be paid by the opposite party apart from the principal amount deposited by the complainants and the interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Towards the litigation expenses a sum of Rs.55,000/- has been prayed to be paid by the opposite party to the complainants. According to the Counsel for the complainants the total amount as described hereinabove, therefore, comes to more than Rs.23,69,000/-, therefore, the instant complaint is maintainable.
Per contra Counsel for the opposite party has submitted that according to the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the instant complaint is not maintainable before this Court because the amount towards consideration paid
:3:
by the complainants is less than Rs.20,00,000/-.
In my opinion the instant case is covered both with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court as the above amount demanded by opposite party from the complainants as well as under the category of Unfair Contract.
The Counsel for the complainants submits that till date no positive correspondence has been received by the complainants from the opposite party nor the proposed land is offered for the reason that the proposed land is not available with the opposite party. ‘
In this regard, it is necessary to mention here that prima facie the act of the opposite party, having no land and it offering to the buyers, is clear cut case of forgery. Without going into the merit of the other issues involved in the instant complaint, the instant complaint is liable to be allowed.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainants :
- the entire principal amount deposited by the complainants alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of actual payment.
- Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) under the heading of mental agony, financial hardship and physical torture.
- Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Only) towards the cost of the litigation.
- Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) as cost.
- The entire amount as directed hereinabove will be paid by the opposite party to the complainants within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
