Delhi

New Delhi

CC/180/2020

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Ansal Hi- Tech Township Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002

Case No.CC-180/2020

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

Raj Kumar

S/o Late Sh. Karam Singh,

R/o 601, Surya Tower,

6^th Floor, VIP Road, The Derabassi,

Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

Also at:

2518, Housing Board, Sector-17,

HUDA Jagadhri District,

Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.                                                                  ...Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Ansal Hi-Tech Township Limited

Through its Director,

Having Registered Office at:

115, Ansal Bhawan, 16,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi – 110001.                                                              …Opposite Party

 

Quorum:

 

 

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Sh. Bariq Ahmad, Member

Sh. Shekhar Chandra, Member

                                                  Date of Institution:16.12.2020

 Date of Order     : 27.04.2023

 

ORDER

 

 

 

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) against Opposite Party (in short OP) alleging deficiency of services.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that complainant contacted the OP to buy a flat in Delhi/NCR within the price range of around Rs.40 Lacs. OP apprised the complainant about one of its project at Greater Noida in the name of Megapolis Builtup Type – 09, Fresesia Terrace Project No. 502. The complainant vide agreement dated 05.04.2012 booked a flat bearing unit no. 05372FS in the said project for a total cost of Rs.35,75,340/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred Forty) which was payable at different stage as per schedule as decided by OP.
3. That OP from time to time demanded money from complainant and complainant till date in total paid Rs.11,05,746/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Five Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six only) to OP for the flat  in question.
4. It is further alleged that it was agreed and assured on the part of OP that the possession of the flat shall be handed over within the period of 42 months from the date of sanction of lay out plan of the unit. The complainant kept on asking about the progress of the construction work of flat and kept contacting OP to know the status of the construction but the OP gave false assurance.
5. The complainant called upon the OP vide letter dated 30.09.2009 and to return the entire deposited money of Rs.11,05,746/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Five Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six) alongwith the interest. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 02.06.2020 demanding refund of his money with the interest and compensation for mental harassment and agony but the OP did not do so.
6. It is alleged that the registered office of OP is situated at the Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi which comes under the jurisdiction of this Commission,  hence this Commission has the jurisdiction to try the complaint. It is also alleged the total claim of the complainant is Rs.33,19,678/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight only) which is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum.
7. It is prayed that the OP be directed to pay Rs.11,05,746/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Five Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six only) to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit of money till realization. OP be also directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) to complainant on account of compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) as the cost of litigation.
8. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP. However as OP did not appear despite service, its defence was stuck off vide order dated 22.03.2021.
9. Complainant filed evidence by affidavit reiterating therein the averments made in the complaint. Complainant relied upon the agreement dated 19.12.2012 CW1/1, broucher of OP Ex CW1/2, copy of allotment letter Ex CW1/3. The receipts of payments Ex CW1/4 to Ex CW1/8. The legal notice and its postal receipts Ex CW1/9.
10. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for Parties and perused the evidence and material on record.
11. In view of the unrebutted testimony of complainant, it has been proved that complainant booked a flat in the project of OP. The complainant has relied upon the agreement dated 05.04.2012, and copies of payment receipts of  Rs.11,05,746/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Five Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six) statement of account issued by OP.
12. It was contended on the behalf of the complainant that OP was deficient in providing its services. It was also submitted that complainant had paid Rs.11,05,746/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Five Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six), but OP failed to deliver the possession even after more than 10 years of the agreement. It was also argued that the opposite party was thus under contractual obligation to construct the property within 42 months from the date of agreement but it failed to do so. As regard deficiency in services, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. V. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. 2020(3) RCR Civil 544 that the failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within the contractually stipulated time frame, amounts to deficiency.
13. It was also held in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, 2 1994(1) SCC 243 by Hon’ble Supreme Court that when a person hires the services of a builder, or a contractor, for the construction of a house or a flat, and the same is for a consideration, it is a “service” as defined by Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The inordinate delay in handing over possession of the flat clearly amounts to deficiency of service. Person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him, and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him, along with compensation.
14. After giving our careful thought to the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for  parties, we are of the view that admittedly, there was inordinate delay in handing over the possession of the flat in question which amounts to deficiency in service.
15. It is to be noted Section 2 (47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, defines ‘unfair trade practices’ in the following words: “unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice” and includes any of the practices enumerated therein. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in above case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.k. Gupta, 1994(1) SCC 243, that when possession is not handed over within the stipulated period, the delay so caused is not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice.
16. We are further of the view that the cause of action being the continuing one as the amount advanced by complainant was not refunded neither possession of the unit was handed over to him, the complaint is within the period of limitation.
17. We thus, hold that OP/Ansal Hi-Tech Township was guilty of deficiency in services. We accordingly direct OP/Ansal Hi-Tech Township to refund the amount Rs.11,05,746/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Five Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six), to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of each deposit. We also award Rs.1,00,000/-  (Rupees One Lakh) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as cost of litigation to be paid within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order, failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @ 15% p.a. till realization.

A copy of this order be sent/provided to all the parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order.

 

 

Poonam Chaudhry

(President)

 Bariq Ahmad                                                                                                                                 Shekhar Chandra

  (Member)                                                                                                                                             (Member)