Delhi

New Delhi

CC/125/2013

Pushkar Dut Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

01 May 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-125/2013

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUSHKAR DUTT GROVER

R/o 995, Sector 15,

Sonepat, Haryana.

....Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD.

15, UGF, Indra Prakash Building,

21 Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi – 110001.

...Opposite Party

 

Quorum:

 

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Mr. Bariq Ahmad, Member

Mr. Shekhar Chandra, Member

                                                          Date of Institution:08.02.2013

 Date of Order     : 01.05.2023

 

ORDER

 

SHEKHAR CHANDRA, MEMBER

The present complaint has been filed under provisions of the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) against Opposite Party (in short OP) alleging deficiency of services.

1. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the OP is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 allegedly claiming to be in the field of residential projects including small colonies. It is further alleged that the agents of OP approached the complainant to book a plot in the OP’s scheme at Rewari, Haryana.
2. The complainant was lured to book a plot of 300 sq. yds. at OP project at Ansal Town, Opp. Huda Sector No. 4, Rewari, Haryana. It is stated that since the scheme appeared attractive, the complainant was lured to book a plot in the OP’s project at Rewari. The complainant at the time of booking paid Rs.2,00,000/-  on 03.03.2005.  The complainant paid a further sum of Rs.2,36,500/-  on 31.01.2006 as per the OP demand letter dated 17.01.2006.  The complainant states that he hoped to receive the allotment letter within the stipulated 6 months period from the date of application as promised in OP. As stated by the complainant, the payments were made in the years 2005 & 2006 at the pre-launch stage. However, the OP promised to make the allotment within 6 months of booking of the plot at Ansal Town, Opp. Huda, Sec-4, Rewari.
3. The complainant states that he had been visiting the office of the OP every week and the commercial executives have been giving false promise. Licences, approvals that may have been received from the Govt. Authorities but nothing has ever been shown to the complainant or even a copy has not been given or circulated to flat-buyers. The complaint submits that the OP has been enjoying the hard earned savings of the complainant and gave only false hopes by showing them glossy pictures.
4. The complainant further states that the OP wanted to allot only a triangular plot which is common parlance is called Gow-Mukh or Sher-Mukh. However, the OP has till date not given the size of the plot proposed to be allotted to the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant has repeatedly been asking for a rectangular plot and not a Triangular plot like Gow-Mukh or Sher-Mukh one. It is further stated by the complainant that the OP has not sent any demand after 17.01.2006.
5. The complainant submits that vide OP letter dated 12.01.2008, OP offered tentative allotment of plot No. C-188,  Ansal Town, Rewari, Haryana. This allotment is of a non-rectangular plot of which the measurements are not even known even to the OP. This act of OP has exposed them of playing fraud with the complainant. A plot of a regular housing colony is always in rectangular and not triangular. The complaint submits that he needs a rectangular and regular shaped plot and is willing to pay the balance before this Commission in one go.
6. It is complained by the complainant that the OP has been demanding a high percentage of infrastructural costs  along with payments. Even approach road does not exist for excess to the complex and there is no schedule fixed as to when it is likely to be made or completed.  Thus, in brief the complainant submits that for the reasons namely – (a) illegally collecting funds at pre-launch stage, (b) not allotting within the promised 6 months, (c) not offering any interest in lieu of (d) holding the deposit for more than 6 years totaling Rs.4.36 Lacs, (e) not fulfilling their own promises made in writing, and (f) allotment of a triangular plot, there are deficiencies on the part of OP.
7. Thus, the present complainant with the prayer that the OP be directed to deliver a plot of an equivalent size. It is further prayed that a direction may also be given to OP to pay interest @ 18% on the deposited amount till actual possession of plot. The complainant has also prayed for a compensation  of Rs. 60,000/- for mental agony and harassment with cost of litigation.
8. In reply to the complaint, the OP submits that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed as the same is barred by limitation under the CP Act as the complaint has been filed after the expiry of around five years.  It is also submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable and the same be dismissed as the OP is not liable for any kind of deficiency in its service or unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2 (g) & 2 (r) of the CP Act. The complainant has failed to show how the OP is liable for deficient in providing its service or unfair trade practices.
9. The OP submits that in the light of Bharti Knitting Company Vs DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Air fright Ltd. [II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC)] the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed as much as the contents and prayer clause of the complaint are against the terms and condition. It is further pleaded by the OP that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  has held that ‘the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract’.
10. The OP furthr submits that the OP on various occasions requested the complainant to sign the allotment letter and when no response came from him, the OP sent letters dated 12.01.2008 & 13.03.2008 to sign the allotment letter pertaining to C-188, Ansal Town, Rewari within 15 days failing which the amount will be refunded and the complainant shall have no lien on the plot. However, the complainant failed to respond the said letters or sing the allotment letter.
11. The complaint case records perused. On 12^th December, 2013, this Commission directed the OP to obtain instruction for refund of principal amount with interest to the complainant and the matter was adjourned to 30^th January, 2014.  The matter was adjourned for 4^th March, 2014 when the following order was recorded:-

“4/3/14

Present: OP Counsel and complainant was present in the morning.

OP agrees to return the principal amount with 8% interest from the date of deposit till realization plus Rs. 30,000/- as litigation expenses. The amount to be given to the counsel for complainant. Signature of OP is obtained on the order sheet. Fix up for compliance report on 30/4/14 and be awaited for appearance of complainant’s counsel.”

 

12. Further, as per order dated 30^th April, 2014, the amount as mentioned above was deposited by the OP with this Commission and the matter was fixed for handing over the cheque to the complainant. The complaint case was listed again on 9^th July, 2014, when the following order was passed:-

“Earlier as per order dated 30.4.14, OP has brought a cheque of Rs. 7,69,076/- as a refund for the said plot. But complainant insisted for plot and he is ready whatever amount is due on the plot will be paid by the complainant to the OP in open court. OP is directed to call a senior officer to resolve this issue positively on 28.7.14.”

 

13. The amount as mentioned above  was not accepted by the complainant as the complainant was insisting for a plot and not refund. Further efforts were made to resolve the issue as it appears from the order sheet dated 15.09.2014, which is reproduced below:

“Present: Complainant counsel Shri G.P. Singh and OP AR-Shri Chander Singh. OP’s AR seeks time to provide substitute plot in question. OP is directed to file size of 2003 plots so that complainant may be able to work out which plot is suitable for him. OP has liberty to provide lesser size of 250 Sq. mtrs., 270 Sq. mtrs.  or 300 Sq. mtrs.  Put up on 17.10.14.”

 

14. Nothing concrete emerged. In the meantime two more applications were moved by the complainant – one under Section 13 (3b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for stay and another for bringing on record the legal representative of the complainant who unfortunately died during the pendency of these proceedings. In the stay application the complainant submits that since the OP is intending to create a third party interest on the plot offered to the complainant, therefore, till the dispute is settled, the OP be restrained from transferring the said plot to a third party.
15. In reply to the application for stay, the OP submits that the provisional allotment of plot bearing C-188 was cancelled as the complainant did not come forward to sign the application for allotment even after various reminders sent by the OP to the complainant. It is further pleaded by the OP that during the pendency of the present complaint, the parties came to a settlement wherein the OP agreed to refund the amount to the complainant with 8% interest and Rs. 30,000/- towards litigation charges, which was accepted by the complainant but lateron refused to accept the money and the complainant insisted for a plot only.  It is further submitted by the OP that as a gesture of goodwill, the OP has shown and offered certain plots, however, again the complainant has failed to finalize the plot in which he is interested as also to pay the amount against the proposed allotment. It is further alleged that the complainant has filed the present application with malafide and is seeking to restraint the OP without any reason  when he has neither paid any amount against the said plot nor the said plot has been allotted to him.  The present application is still pending consideration of this Commission. As regard the application for legal representation, the same was allowed and LR has been brought on record.
16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. The complainant has been insisting from the very beginning that he is interested only in the plot and not refund of the amount. He has also agreed to pay the cost of the plot. In his legal notice also the complainant has been insisting for a plot for which he applied.
17. From the record of proceedings an inference can be drawn that the OP is not sincere in its commitment. The OP, it appears, is in possession of  plot but just to harass the complainant, it does not want to cooperate and resolve the dispute amicably. In fact on various dates, it is the OP who made a statement that a suitable plot will be allotted to the complainant. Complainant also agreed that he is willing and ready to make higher payment, if any, if a suitable plot is allotted to him. We, therefore, hold that there is deficiency in the service of the OP and it has failed to discharge its obligation.
18. Thus, We direct the opposite party to allot and hand over physical possession of the plot as applied by him at the same cost/price as it was offered to him. The OP shall also compensate the complainant by paying a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the deposited amount in addition to the relief already granted above.

A copy of order be sent to all the parties free of cost. The order be also uploaded in the website of the Commission (www.confonet.nic.in). File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of the order.

 

 

 

[Poonam Chaudhry]

President

 

[Bariq Ahmad]                                                                                                                   [Shekhar Chandra]

    Member                                                                                                                                Member