Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1131/2018

SMT. SUNITA BHATIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

PRADEEP KUMAR AGGARWAL

19 Feb 2020

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :19.02.2020

Date of Decision :24.02.2020

COMPLAINT NO.1131/2018

In the matter of:

Smt. Sunita Bhatia,

W/o. Shri Trilok Kumar Bhatia,

R/o. C-1, Panchwati, Azadpur,

Delhi-110033.

 

Presently at:-

B-6 Panchwati,  Azadpur,

Delhi-110033..                                                                      ………Complainant

Versus

 

M/s. Ansal Properties &

Infrastructure Ltd.,

1.  

115 Ansal Bhawan,

16 Kasturba GandhiMarg,

New Delhi-110001.                                                ……..Opposite Party

 

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 where it was registered as CC no.220/12. Letter of the same was returned  vide order dated 24.08.18 for being presented in this Commission due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction in view of three member bench decision of NC in Amrish Shukla.
2. The case of the complainant is that he booked one residential  apartment no.0114-A-0604 on 6^th Floor in “The Europa Residency” on 14.10.09. OP promised to complete the construction in 36 months and stated that they had got sanctioned and approved building plan. Complainant paid Rs.1,15,000/- by cheque dated 10.10.09. She further paid Rs.2,30,431.25 by cheque dated 22.02.10, Rs.1,15,143.75 by cheque dated 10.04.10, Rs.1,15,143.75 by cheque dated 24.05.10, Rs.1,15,143.75 by cheque dated 09.03.11, flat buyer agreement dated 07.05.10 was executed. The area of the flat was to be 1335 sq. ft.
3. Complainant has deposited Rs.6,90,862.50. OP failed to even start excavation work, 27 months have already elapsed from the date of first deposit. The OP is liable to pay damages and compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for great harassment, humiliation, defamation, mental torture, pain and agony. Hence this complaint for directing OP to refund Rs.6,90,862.50 with interest @20% p.a. from the date of deposit, Rs.10 lakhs as compensation and Rs.11,000/- for cost of litigation.
4. The OP was served for 17.07.12 but did not put in appearance. It was proceeded exparte vide order dated 28.08.12.
5. In support of her case the complainant filed her own affidavit in evidence. She proved the  various receipts as Ex.CW-1/A to G. She proved copies of correspondence and courier receipt as EX-CW1/H to K. Copy of flat buyer agreement is Ex.CW 1/L.
6. The complainant  has filed written arguments. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. There is no reason to disbelieve  the uncontroverted case of the complainant. The counsel for complainant cited decision of NC in Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nidhi Jain and others III (2013) CPJ 551. In that case the District Forum directed the OP to refund the amount with interest @9% p.a. and Rs.1,000/- as compensation.
7. In view of the above discussion the OP is directed to refund Rs.6,90,862.50 with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund.
8. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
9. File be consigned to record room.                                                                                                                                                                            (O.P. GUPTA)                                                                                         MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
   •