Delhi

New Delhi

CC/159/2021

Raman Kumar Jha - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

21 Feb 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-159/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Raman Kumar Jha

90-B, Patpar Ganj Village,

New Delhi – 110091.                                                              ...Complainant

VERSUS

 

M/s Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Ltd.

115, Ansal Bhawan,

16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi – 110001.                                                              ...Respondent

 

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

                                                                                                                      Date of Institution: 24.08.2021                                                           Date of Order      : 21.02.2023

 

ORDER

 

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

 

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act). Briefly stated the facts of the case that Opposite Party is a Limited company engaged in construction of houses, villas, building.
2. It is alleged that complainant had booked a residential Unit No. E55014 at AASRA – EWS AASRA AND BHAROSA Apartment at Greater Noida (UP) and paid Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) booking amount vide demand draft No. 500148 dated 17/12/2015 alongwith application form. After confirmation of booking OP allotted Unit No. E55014 and AASRA – EWS AASRA AND BHAROSA Apartment at Greater Noida (UP).
3. It is also alleged that after confirmation of booking complainant have received several demand notice from OP dated 23/06/2016, 18/05/2016, 04/07/2016 & 26/08/2016 for demand Rs.20682.00, Rs.14976.00, Rs.26890.00 & Rs.29843.00 and had made payment according to demand notices within time.
4. That, complainant has paid total amount of Rs.1,07,641.00 (One Lakh Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty One) and thereafter wrote letter on dated 14/06/2019 for knowing status of said apartment unit but OP failed to provide unit date.
5. It is alleged the complainant sent a Legal Notice to OP on dated April 13, 2021 and which was delivered on April 18, 2021.  Complainant requested to OP to refund the amount paid by complainant alongwith interest but the Opposite Party failed to do so within the notice period.
6. It is alleged that the facts of the case clearly show that the Opposite Party had dishonest intention to cheat and defraud the complainant. Due to which the complainants have gone through mental harassment for many year and has also suffered monetary loss.
7. It is also alleged that OP is guilty of deficiency in service. The Opposite Party is liable refund amount of 1,07,641.00 along with interest 18% P.A. from August, 2014 to till date for deficiency in service and mental torture and harassment and legal cost.
8. It is also alleged that the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on the dates when OP stopped sending demand notice and communications. Secondly when Complainant sent legal notice to OP and but OP did not refund the amount paid by complainant. The cause of action is continuing and subsisting one.
9. It is alleged that the complainant and defendants are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, hence this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.
10. It is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.1,07,641.00 (Rupees One Lakh Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty One) along with interest @ 18% P.A. amount paid by complainant against said unit. Opposite Parties be also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh) for deficiency in service and compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh) for mental agony/harassment as well as Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) towards cost of litigation.
11. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP. OP entered appearance however did not filed written statement within the statutory period as such defence of OP was stuck of vide order dated 28.07.2022. Complainants filed their evidence by affidavits reiterating therein the averments made in the complaint.
12. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Parties and perused the evidence and material on record carefully.
13. From the unrebutted evidence of complainant, it has been proved that complainant booked a unit in the project of OP and paid Rs.1,07,641/- (Rupees One Lakh Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty One) to OP. The complainant relied copies of payment receipts of  Rs.1,07,641.00 (Rupees One Lakh Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty One) Allotment letter, legal notice.
14. 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 about Rs.1,07,641.00 (Rupees One Lakh Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty One) but OP failed to deliver the property and also did not provide the status of the unit to complainant despite letter dated 14/06/2019 of complainant. It is to be noted that 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.
15. 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.
16.  We are of the view that admittedly, there is inordinate delay in handing over the possession of the flat in question which amounts to deficiency in service. OP had taken payments despite the fact that unit was not ready for being handed over.
17. 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.
18. It is also pertinent to note Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in Fortune Infrastructure and Anr. Vs. Trevor D’Lima and Ors.2018(5) SCC 442 that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of flat and they are entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by them along with compensation.
19. 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.
20. We are also of the view that this Commission has territorial jurisdiction as OP works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. This Commission also has pecuniary jurisdiction as the value of goods/services does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs. 
21. We thus, hold that OP/Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Ltd. guilty of deficiency in services. We accordingly direct OP/Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Ltd. to refund the amount Rs.1,07,641.00 (Rupees One Lakh Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty One) to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of each deposit till realization, 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. for the delayed period. We also award Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as cost of litigation to complainant.

A copy of this order be sent/provided to all 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)

                                                   

 

 

 

                                               Shekhar Chandra

                                                                                                   (Member)