Delhi

StateCommission

CC/659/2018

MS. DEEPIKA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Feb 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :18.02.2019

Date of Decision : 21.02.2019

COMPLAINT NO.659/2018

In the matter of:

 

Ms. Deepika Gupta,

W/o. Shri Vikash Gupta,

59, Sadar Bazar,

•  

 

 

Versus

 

M/s. Ansal Properties

Infrastructure Ltd.,

115 Ansal Bhawan,

16 Kasturba Gandhi marg,

New Delhi-110001.

 

Also at:

Block No.50/1.5,

Shop No.G1, and M1, Anupam Plaza,

Sanjay Palace Commercial Complex,

1.  

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. Initially this complaint was filed in District Forum and was registered as no.CC No.635/13. The case of the complainant was that she booked a residential plot with the OP vide application dated 13.05.06 and paid Rs.4lakhs through cheque. It was stated that allotment was to be offered within 6 months and in case of failure, simple interest @8% per annum was to be paid by OP for the time exceeding period of 6 months. Vide letter dated 15.04.07 a demand of Rs.1,41,926/- was made in which plot no.M0055 was shown to be booked in the name of complainant.
2. Representative of OP told the complainant that she should go for a corner plot which would be more expensive but also more beneficial. She paid Rs.1,16,120/- as demanded by OP, alongwith Rs.25,806/- toward changed plot. In all she paid Rs.5,41,926/- till May, 2007. The OP sent letter dated 12.02.08 asking for payment of Rs.1,16,600/- toward plot no.Q0052 stating that rates have been revised.  The complainant contacted OP and was told that plot no. was Q0052 was never plot of complainant. Complainant plot no.M0047. OP sent letter dated 26.02.08 stating that complainant has paid excess of Rs.14,994/- in respect of plot no.Q0066. She approached the OP and told that plot no.M0047 was allotted to her.  She was assured that rectification would be made and confirmed to her. On 07.04.08 another letter was received stating that he has paid Rs.13,772/- in excess in respect of plot no.M0047.
3. The complainant was called upon to sign an application form. She objected as she had already signed the same. It was stated that as the project was at final stage, this was a formal requirement and so another application form dated 09.04.08 was issued vide letter dated 16.07.08. She was called upon to further pay Rs.4,76,051/-. On 21.07.08 a rectified demand of Rs.1,62,279/- was raised.  Though she was not willing to pay said amount, she gave a cheque which was dishonoured.
4. Vide letter dated 15.01.09 the OP admitted that it was still purchasing land for developing and town ship. In August, 2011 OP raised another demand of Rs.4,67,780/- vide letter dated 23.11.11. The OP stated that plot no. M0047 booked by complainant had been cancelled. Hence, she filed complaint for refund of Rs.12,32,359/- which was 70% of the total consideration, alongwith interest @12% per annum, Rs.1 lakh towards financial losses, mental  agony, inconvenience, harassment.
5. The  OP was served for 03.09.13 and put in appearance. It did not file reply on 03.09.13 or 29.11.13. It was proceeded exparte vide order dated 29.11.13. Later on Shri Akash Vaid appeared for OP and was allowed to file reply on 20.12.13. None appeared for OP on 2012.13.
6. On 20.12.13 the complainant filed her evidence by affidavit.
7. During  the pendency of the case three member bench of NC ruled in Amrish Shukla’s case that it was the value of the property booked which is relevant for pecuniary jurisdiction and not the amount of refund sought by the complainant. So complaint was returned for being filed in this Commission. Since the Op was already exparte in District Forum, it was not considered necessary to serve him afresh. However Shri Robin Raju, counsel for OP appeared in this Commission on 01.11.18 and was apprised about the proceedings.
8. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. There is no reason to disbelieve the exparte evidence filed by the complainant by way of affidavit. This is more so when the affidavit is supported by documentary evidence.
9. Anyhow since the complainant herself has pleaded that OP agreed to refund the amount with interest @8% per annum, she can not claim interest @12% per annum. The OP is directed to refund Rs.12,32,359/- alongwith interest @8% per annum from the respective dates when the complainant made the payment till the date of refund.
10. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
11. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                    

  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)