Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1224/2012

Madhu Bala - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ansal Properties - Opp.Party(s)

Arvinder Kumar

26 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                         Complaint No. 1224  of  2012.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 26.11.2012

                                                                                         Date of decision: 26.05.2017

Smt. Madhu Bala aged about 60 years wife of Sh. Ravinder Garg, r/o H. No. C-2/2186, Indira Colony, Buria Gate, Jagadhri, Haryana.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                     Versus

M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited ( Company duly incorporatd under the Indian Companies Act, 1956) Having its registered addres at 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 and also having site office at SCO-136, Sector-17, Commercial Belt Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                         … Respondent.

 

BEFORE        SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.  

 

Present: Sh. Arvinder Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

               Sh. Hitesh Gambhir, Advocate, counsel for respondent  

 

ORDER

 

1.                       Complainant Madhu Bala has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a plot measuring 300 sq. meters ( 359 sq. yards) in the residential township which was floated in the name of Sushant City, Yamuna Nagar by the respondent (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OP) and paid the required booking money amounting to Rs. 83,090/- towards the plot No. B-1001. At the time of booking of the plot in question neither any agreement was confirmed nor any copy of the same was provided to the complainant. However, in January, 2010, the complainant was provided with an agreement alongwith covering letter. On inspection of the site, it reveals that no development as promised by the OP had taken place in the terms of laying down of the roads and its connectivity with the main road, laying down of the sewer line and its joining with the main sewer line in the integrated township nor any storm water drain was in place as on when file the present complaint in the State Commission. The progress of work carried out by the OP was far behind schedule. It was utter surprise to the complainant that the entire land of the integrated township (Sushant City Yamuna Nagar) has been mortgaged with the Financial Institutions and the first charge is already created, therefore, no financial institution is coming forward to approve the project for loan of the respective buyers. In the absence of any financial assistance from any financial institution/ bank, the complainant is facing extreme hardship in meeting the unreasonable demand of the OP. Even, thereafter, the complainant was in receipt of notice dated 06.07.2011 from the OP which was termed as cancellation notice and the complainant was demanded to pay Rs. 13,41,430/- alongwith interest at the rate of 20% per annum compounded within 30 days failing which the allotment/booking of the plot shall stand cancelled. Accordingly, the complainant had approached the OP for depositing the balance installment but the OP refused to accept the same and has asked to deposit the installments alongwith interest for which the complainant was not liable because the OP was in deficient in his service and has not been able to complete the work as per schedule and project was far from completion. Lastly, it has been prayed that the OP be directed to cancel the letter dated 06.07.2011 demanding interest and further not to threat to cancel the allotment or resale the plot in question. It has been further prayed that the Op be directed to accept the installments without charging penal interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

                        Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant herself is guilty of breach of terms and conditions of the plot buyers’ agreement. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, it is proved from the record itself that the timely payment of the installments towards the consideration of plot in question under the buyers agreement was the essence of the contract and any breach committed by the complainant in not making the timely payment, the complainant will be liable to pay the interest and the OP has rightly asked the complainant to pay the installments alongwith interest strictly in terms and conditions of the agreement executed by the complainant with the OP with open eye and on merit it has been submitted that complainant had booked a plot measuring 300 sq. meter in August 2008, however, no assurance of any kind as alleged was ever given by the OP. The payment made is a matter of record and anything contrary to the record is denied. It has been further mentioned that a considerable development work in the area have already been done by the OP and the development is about to complete and the OP is intended to deliver the possession of the plots to the allottee soon. The complainant who herself is not performing her part by making the payment of installments timely as agreed upon, is trying to depict herself as a victim under the shelter of present complaint, whereas she is herself a defaulter and not entitled to get any relief. It has been further mentioned that on the date when notice regarding cancellation of plot on account of non-payment of installment was issued on 06.07.2011 on that date Rs. 13,41,430/- alongwith interest towards the sale consideration were due. The complainant never came forward to comply with the terms and conditions of the buyers agreement in making the installments regularly and is willful defaulter. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

                        In support of her case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of application form as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of some rough calculation as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of forwarding letter and agreement as Annexure C-3 to C-5, photo copy of cancellation letter dated 06.07.2011 as Annexure C-6, Certified copy of order of Hon’ble State Commission, Panchkula as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

                        On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Parveen Sharma as Annexure RA and documents such as photo copy of Resolution as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of letter waiving of interest dated 04.06.2013 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of agreement as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     The only version of the complainant is that no development work was done as promised by the OP i.e. laying down of roads and its connectivity with the main road, laying down of the sewerage line and its joining with main sewerage line in the integrated township nor any storm water drain was in place and despite that the official of the OP issued a notice dated 06.07.2011 for cancellation of the plot in question and further demanding an amount of Rs. 13,41,430/- alongwith interest @ 20% per annum compounded had been issued to the complainant which is totally illegal and liable to be quashed.

                        On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP argued that the present complaint has been filed just to save the skin from making the payment of installments as per buyers’ agreement and terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that from the contents of the complaint it is clear that only an amount of Rs. 83,090/- has been deposited by the complainant in the year August, 2008 and after that not a single penny has ever been paid to the OP. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that the complainant has totally failed to prove that no development work was done by the OP, as alleged in the complaint. Even, learned counsel for the OP further draw our attention towards the letter dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure R-2) sent to the complainant in which a scheme was given regarding waiving off the interest accrued on unpaid dues/ installments and argued that despite this letter, the complainant has failed to make any payment to the OP. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

                        After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP as the complainant has totally failed to prove that no development work was done by the OP in the area of integrated residential township called Sushant City, Yamuna Nagar. The complainant has placed on file only application form and photo copy of agreement but from these documents it is nowhere proved that no development work was done by the OP, as alleged in the complaint by the complainant. Even, the complainant did not bother to move any application for appointment of local commissioner to prove the version mentioned in the present complaint. Further, the complainant has also failed to prove that she had ever deposited any installment of the plot in question as mentioned in the allotment letter/buyer’s agreement except the amount of Rs. 83,090/-. Meaning thereby that the complainant was herself negligent in depositing the installments with the OP. So, in the circumstances noted above as the complainant has totally failed to place on file any cogent evidence to prove the version mentioned in the complaint, hence, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

                        Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 26.05.2017.                                                            

 

                                                                                    ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                              PRESIDENT

                                                                              DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

                             

                      (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

                 MEMBER                                          MEMBER