Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1393/2010

Rishi Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructures Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Feb 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/1393/10                                                                                                                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Rishi Kapoor,

B-2 Krishna Nagar,

Behind Raghunath Mandir,

Delhi-110051

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

M/s. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.,

115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, K.G Marg,

New Delhi-110001

                                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

Member: S.R Chaudhary

 

The Complainant had booked a flat on 12.04.07 as per Exh.C1 in upcoming project called Green Escape Apartment at Sonipat. The Complainant had paid total amount Rs.9,06,593/- till he entered flat buyer agreement dated 12.04.07 which is duly authenticated as per Exh.C2. As per flat buyer agreement, possession of flat was supposed to be given by OP within thirty months but there were no construction activities at site till 2009. Till that time the project plan was not sanctioned through license, was in its favor as complainant came to know the facts after visiting at site in question. Ultimately a notice was served to OP on 22.04.10 as per Exh.C3 to refund depositied amount but OP neither replied the legal notice nor communicated any facts of the project in question.    After lapse of four months OP sent a letter to the complainant on 03.08.10 informing him that flat agreed in the tower assured by OP has not been constructed so far, due to some force majeure as per Exh.C4 and it was decided to shift him to some other tower with almost similar flat. He was given option to accept it or to inform OP otherwise. The Complainant had already given legal notice for seeking refund. He did not agree with the option given.

The OP in its reply had admitted all facts as mentioned above and justified the delay in construction and offer of alternative by its letters.

We have considered the rival case. It is settled by number of judgements of Hon’ble National Commission that alternative cannot be imposed on the consumer and in case he does not exercise the option, the contract terminates and consumer is entitled to refund of the deposit with reasonable interest on it depending on facts and circumstances of each case. See National Commission judgement in the case of Tarun Kumar Ghai Vs. Malibu Estate Pvt. Ltd., (2008) CPJ 309(NC).

In the present case before us, complainant did not exercise the option of alternative site and therefore he is entitled to be return of deposit of Rs.9,06,593/-  with interest @ 12% from date of deposit till payment. We also award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in not returning the same on demand and forcing litigation. We also award Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP 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 06.02.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER