Delhi

StateCommission

CC/755/2017

SONIKA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

DEEPIKA

04 Dec 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :04.12.2019

Date of Decision :09.12.2019

COMPLAINT NO.755/2017

In the matter of:

Smt. Sonika Devi,

W/o. Shri Sushil Kumar,

R/o. 1318/89, Shanti Nagar,

Tri Nagar, Delhi.………Complainant

Versus

1.  

Infrastructure Ltd.,

115 Ansal Bhawan,

16 kasturba Gandhi Marg,

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. The case of the complainant is that on 09.04.12 she entered into flat buyer agreement and OP allotted flat no.0102-19-1104 having area of 1061 sq.ft. against the sale consideration of Rs.1,13,087/- to the OP by the time of filing the complaint. In terms of clause 5 of the flat buyer agreement the OP was to complete development of the project within 42 months with an extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of agreement but  till date the OP has not completed the project.
2. On 12.04.17 she made  last visit and the OP had constructed only up to 9^th floor. The OP is liable to refund the amount with interest @24% p.a. She sent mail dated 27.03.17 that since the flat had not been ready after three years, she wanted her money back. Hence this complaint for directing OP to Rs.17,69,613/- with interest @24% p.a. w.e.f. date of payment till realisation, Rs.10 lakhs towards  mental agony, harassment, torture and deficiency in service. Cost of the proceeding shave also been sought
3. The OP served for 08.12.17 and put in appearance through his counsel who filed Vakalatnama. It failed to file WS within statutory period. Its right to file WS was closed vide order dated 28.08.18.
4. In evidence the complainant has filed her own affidavit.
5. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. There is no reasons to disbelieve sworn testimony of the complainant particularly when the same is based on documentary evidence. However  the  interest claimed by her @24% p.a. is on the higher side. At present the banks are offering interest on FD @ around 7% p.a.
6. The OP is directed to pay refund of Rs.17,69,613/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of payment till the  date of refund.
7. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
8. File be consigned to record room.

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)