Delhi

New Delhi

CC/284/2019

Paras Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jun 2022

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

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

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC.284/2019                                          

In the matter of:

 

Paras Jain

S/o Ramesh Chand Jain

R/o 3168/Complainant, Gali No. 231, Chander Nagar,

Tri Nagar, Delhi

Correspondence Address:-

3188-G, Gali No. 231, Near Vaishno Mata Mandir,

Chander Nagar, Tri Nagar,

Delhi-110035                                                                                                              ……..COMPLAINANT

 

Versus

Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd.

115, AnsalBhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001                                                                                                    ……..OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Quorum:

  Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

              Shri Bariq Ahmad, Member

              Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

                                                                                        Dated of Institution          :15.11.2019                                                                                                                                                                     Date of Order                    :02.06.2022

O R D E R

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. 1986. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that Complainant booked a flat in the scheme of respondent and complainant paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent towards booking amount. The actual amount of the flat was Rs. 5.85 lacs. The respondent allotted the Flat No. K6/ A6/0307 Sect K, Bharosa LIG to Complainant.
2. It is further stated that the respondent thereafter told the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- to avail concession @ Rs. 90/- per day. The complainant accordingly deposited an amount of Rs. 1,80,408/-. The complainant also paid the amount Rs. 14387/-.
3. It is also alleged that respondent continuously revised the flat money regularly as from Rs. 5.82 Lacs to Rs. 7 Lacs and thereafter Rs. 8.40 Lacs. The respondent has not constructed the flat as yet, the complainant has not been give the possession of the flat, nor OP has refunded the money deposit by Complainant with interest. The complainant’s mother suffering from Cancer, he is in dire need of money.
4. It is prayed that the OP be directed to refund the amount deposited by Complainant with interest, cost of litigation and compensation also be awarded.
5. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP, OP had entered appearance but Written Statement was not filed despite several opportunities being granted. Thus, vide order dated 13.03.2020, the right to OP to file Written Statement was closed. The Complainant filed his evidence by affidavit, he placed reliance upon the receipt of payment issued by OP for the booking amount of Rs. 20,000/- CW1/B. Thereafter, another receipt of payment of Rs. 20,000/- CW1/C and receipt of Rs. 1,80,408/- CW1/B and receipt of Rs. 14,387/- CW1/E.
6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Parties and perused the evidence and material on record carefully.
7. From the unrebutted testimony of Complainant it has been proved that complainant booked a flat in the project of OP. The complainant had relied upon the flat buyer agreement and receipts of payment issued by OP.
8. 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. 2,34,795 (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Ninty Five Only),  to the OP but OP failed to hand over possession of  the property. As regard deficiency in services, Hon;ble Supreme Court has heldin ArifurRahman 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.
9. It was also held in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, 2 1994(1) SCC 243byHon’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.
10. After giving our careful thought to the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for  parties, 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.

Thus as the services of OP were deficient, the complainant was justified in claiming refund of the amount deposited by him with compensation.

13. We are further of the view that the cause of action being the continuing one as the amount advanced by complainants was not refunded neither possession of the flat was handed over to him, the complaint is within the period of limitation.
14. We thus, hold that OP was guilty of deficiency in services. We accordingly direct OP to refund the amount Rs. 2,34,795 (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Ninty Five Only) to the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order. In case of delay in the payment beyond 4 weeks OP is liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a. for the delayed period. We also award Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) as cost on litigation.
15. A copy of this order be 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

 

        (BARIQ AHMAD)                                                                           (ADARSH NAIN)           

           MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER