Delhi

New Delhi

CC/211/2021

Subhalaxmi Rautray and Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

28 Apr 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

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

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.211/2021                 

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. SUBHALAXMI RAUTRAY

    C/O SAMANWAYA RAUTRAY

    K-204,SUPERTECH ECOCITI

    SECTOR 137, NOIDA-201301                     ..... COMPLAINANT-1

 

2. SAROJ KUMAR DAS MAJUMDAR

    C/O SAMANWAYA RAUTRAY

    K-204, SUPERTECH ECOCITI

    SECTOR 137, NOIDA-201301                     ..... COMPLAINANT-2

 

Vs

 

ANSAL HI-TECH TOWNSHIP LIMITED

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

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: 22.10.2021

                                                                  Date of Order     :  28.04.2023.

O R D E R

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

 

1. The present complainant has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short CP Act) against Opposite party alleging deficiency of service.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 22nd November, 2003, the Housing & Urban Planning Department, Government, Government of Uttar Pradesh announced a Hi-Tech Townships Policy vide its Notification, G.O. NO.6087/9-A-2003-34 V/03 to develop Hi-Tech Townships in the State of Uttar Pradesh and invited proposals for the said development. As per the notification, the High-Power Committee constituted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh selected M/s Uttam Steel & Associates as developer company for the development of High Tech Townships at the location near the town Dadri adjoining Greater Noida and Uttar Pradesh. The Developer Company formed a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) with the name and title of Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Limited (in short "SPV”). A memorandum of Understanding was signed between Bulandshahar (the Nodal Agency) and the Consortium for development of High Tech Townships in Gautam Budh Nagar (Dadri) for the development of Hi-Tech Township in Gautam Budh Nagar (Dadri) on 13th December, 2006 in furtherance of which the detailed Project Report (DPR) has been submitted by the Developer Company and subsequently approved by the Bulandshahar Development Authority.
3. It is further alleged the Opposite Party proposed the development of a Group Housing by the name Fairway Apartment-l' in Pocket Water's Edge comprising of various buildings, parking spaces and other facilities and utilities and landscaping. The Opposite Party had specifically represented to the complainants that it shall develop the Project in question in a timely manner and deliver possession of duly completed and habitable Residential Built-Up apartments with all facilities/amenities to the Apartment Buyers, including the Complainants herein.
4. The complainants were interested in the purchase of an apartment in the Project, that was being developed by the Opposite Party for the purposes of residence. After a perusal of the brochure and sanction plan, the Complainants had filed an application dated 18th February, 2009, for the provisional allotment for an apartment unit in the Project of the Opposite Party against a booking amount of Rs.1,37,334 (Rupees One Lakh Thirty- Seven Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Four Only) paid by the Complainants through Cheque No. 824753 dated 18th February, 2009 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd, which constituted as earnest money for the purpose of the Arrangement.
5. The complainants were allotted an apartment, being apartment No. 0152 located in Tower No. H on the 1 floor in the Group Housing Complex having an approximate Sale Area admeasuring 1459.06 sq. ft. for a total sale price of Rs.28,03,442.20/- (Rupees Twenty-Eight Lakhs Three Thousand Four Hundred Forty Two, Twenty Paise Only).
6.  The Complainants have already paid a sum of Rs.23,22,342/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Twenty-Two Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Two Only). It is alleged under clause 4.1.a of the Arrangement, the Opposite party had undertaken to complete construction of the apartment within 42 (Forty-Two) months from the date of signing of the Arrangement, with grace period of 90 (Ninety) days. The Opposite Party ought to have completed construction of the apartment by 11th July, 2012 or latest by 11th October, 2012,inclusive of the 90 days grace period. However, the Opposite Party has failed to complete the construction and handover possession of the Apartment to the Complainants till date.
7. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party has arbitrarily, unlawfully and indefinitely locked-in the Complainants' money. The Opposite Party has indulged in unfair trade practice and has been deficient in its service as it has failed to hand over the possession of the apartment even after 9 (Nine) years of the scheduled and extended date for completion.
8. It is further submitted that the complainants are not only entitled to have their money refunded but are also entitled to heavy compensation from the Opposite Party in addition to the delayed interest. The deficient service provided by the Opposite Party has caused immense mental agony and harassment to the Complainants. The Complainants cannot be compelled to wait for such an unreasonable time to possession of the Apartment after performing their part in the Arrangement diligently and timely.
9. It is also stated that the case of complainants is squarely covered by judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case Brighu Kashik& Ors us Ansal Hitech Townships Ltd.(CC/1951/2016) the Hon’ble NCDRC in its judgment dated 16th October, 2020, relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghvan, (2019) 5 SCC 725and Kolkata West International City Put Ltd. vs Devasis Rudra (Civ. App. 3182/2019 held that delay in handing over possession of flats is a deficiency of service and the buyers cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period for possession and were entitled to a refund of amounts paid. A period of over 7 years was beyond reasonable. The allottees/ buyers being similarly placed as the present complainants and against the Opposite Party, the Hon'ble NCDRC directed the present Opposite Party to refund amounts paid by the buyers along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of payment to the date of realization. Thus, Complainants would be entitled to a refund of the amounts paid which total up to Rs.23,22,342 /- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Twenty-Two Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Two Only) alongwith interest from the time of payment till the date of realization from the Opposite party. The complainants have claimed compensation interest @ 18% p.a.
10.  That it is further submitted that this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present consumer complaint as the cause of action arose in New Delhi, the agreements was executed between the parties at New Delhi. It is further submitted that the registered office of the Opposite Party is located at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. The complaint is within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
11.  It is prayed that OP be directed to:

1. Direct the opposite party to refund and pay an amount of INR 23,22,342/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Twenty-Two Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Two Only)for the amount paid for the Apartment along with interest @18% per annum to thereon from the date of deposits and till the date of filing of this Complaint;
2.  Direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of INR 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience caused to the Complainants as a result of undue in handing over possession of the Apartment
3. Direct the opposite Party to pay INR 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards litigation costs.
4. Pass/ make such other appropriate orders and / or direction as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

12. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP, OP was duly served. However as none appeared for OP despite service its defence was stuck off vide order dated 02.02.2022.  Complainants filed evidence by affidavit reiterating therein the averments made in the complaint.
13. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the evidence and material on record carefully.
14. From the unrebutted testimony of complainant, it has been proved that complainant booked a flat in the project of OP. The complainants filed a copy of allotment letter dated 11.02.2009 the receipts of payments.
15. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in the case titled Brighu Kashik& Ors us Ansal Hitech Townships Ltd.(CC/1951/2016), we hold OP/ Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Limited guilty of deficiency of service and direct OP to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.23,22,342/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred Forty Two)with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of each deposit till realization within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order, failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @ 15% p.a. till realization. We also award Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as cost of the litigation.

A copy of this order be sent 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)