Delhi

New Delhi

CC/495/2012

A.K Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

24 Jul 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/495/12                            Dated:

In the matter of:

A.K Malik,

F-1, Safdarjung Fire Station,

Jor Bagh, New Delhi-3

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

Ansal Hi-Tech Township,

115, Ansal Bhawan,

16, K.G Marg, New Delhi-110001

 

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

 

The deficiency alleged against OP consists in approving two plots bearing no.151 & 153 back to back, on booking with OP by complainant along with his friend on 04.02.12 in phase III, of Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd., but not actually allotting the same, after receiving the booking amount.

It is alleged that he was looking for a plot having corner, with 2 side roads, a park facing and having an area of 90 sqm. After discussing the plot bearing no.151 ( South facing) and 153 (North facing) in Sector-10B, with above desired features were identified and Complainant opted for interest free payment plan and paid Rs.83,888/-) being 5% of basic sale price) vide cheque bearing no.69334 of ICICI Bank (Annexure C & D).

It is alleged that on inquiry, on getting demand on 06.03.12, he came to know that it was not a corner plot with two side roads, nor it was park facing, and area of plot was less than 90 sqm, and there is no back to back touching plot. He protested but got no reply, but a demand letter for 3^rd installment including arrears of 2^nd installment.

He being disappointed sought refund with interest which was not paid. He has brought this complaint.

The OP was issued notice, but it has not responded and was proceeded exparte. We have considered the exparte unrebutted evidence, along with documents, Annexure A to J with complaint exhibited as PW1 to PW-12, plan placed on record and correspondence. These documents clearly show that OP has not kept up the specification on which the plot was booked. The allotment of different type of plot, shows lack of consensus ad-idem, and such agreement is void. The changed features plot cannot be fastened on complainant.

We thus, hold OP guilty of deficiency and by not responding to refund request it has acted unfairly in trade.

We accordingly direct OP to return sum of Rs.83,888/- with interest of 9% from date of seeking refund till payment. We also award a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency and litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

Pronounced in open Court on 24.07.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER