Delhi

New Delhi

CC/708/2014

Manju Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Ansal Township and Project Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Apr 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/708/2014

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Manju Devi

W/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Aggarwal

R/o  B-971, Jahangir Puri, Delhi – 110033.

….Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

 

1. M/s Ansal Township & Projects Ltd.

(Formerly Ansal Township & Land

Development Ltd.)

Regd. Office: 1202. Antariksha Bhawan,

22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110001.

 

 

2. M/s Ansal Township & Projects Ltd.

(Formerly Ansal Township & Land

Development Ltd.)

312-A, Sangam Tower,

Church Road, Jaipur – 320001.

 

....Opposite Parties

Quorum:

 

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Mr. Bariq Ahmad, Member

Mr. Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

 

                                                                                                     Date of Institution   :           16.09.2014                                                                                                                                                                    Date of Order     :             20.04.2023

  

 

ORDER

Per: Shekhar Chandra, Member:

 

            The facts of this Complaint as culled out from the record are as under:

 

1. The Opposite Parties in the present matter advertised for booking of plots for unit in ‘Sushant City’, Jodhpur. On 24.03.2006 through an account payee cheque of Rs.93,840/- was received by the opposite party from the Complainant against receipt No. 17523 dated 07.04.2006 and the complainant was allotted Customer Code 014/M0066. Further a sum of Rs.47,276/- was received by the Opposite Parties from the Complainant through Cheque dated 13.10.2006 drawn on Bank of India, New Delhi branch. Plot No. C0338 at ‘Sushant City’, Jodhpur, was booked in favour of Complainant.
2. The Opposite Parties cancelled booking of plot C0338, Sushant City, Jodhpur vide letter dated 07.05.2007. A sum of Rs.47,039/- was refunded through cheque after deducting earnest money on 20.06.2012. The said cheque was not encashed by the complainant under protest.
3. The Opposite Parties again issued fresh Cheque on 23.09.2013 in lieu of earlier cheque which was not encashed by the Complainant, conveying to the Complainant that she shall have no right title or interest for her claim for plot and the said plot was taken back by the Opposite Parties.
4. As alleged, a communication dated 18.09.2013 was sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties in which the complainant stated that in the year 2006, two Units/Plots at  Jaipur and Jodhpur were booked – one in the name of Suresh Kumar, husband of the Complainant  and another in the name of Complainant herself.  One installment each for both the Units was paid.  At that time the agreement for Jaipur plot was not executed. However, Complainant and her husband tried their best to persuade the Opposite parties for early execution of agreement but nothing positive was heard from the Opposite Parties. The delay and non-cooperation on the part of Opposite Parties, created suspicion in the mind of the Complainant, therefore, the Complainant stopped making payment by installment for both the Units - Jodhpur and Jaipur. It is further alleged that the complainant suffered harassment & mental torture due to irresponsible acts of Opposite Parties.  After serious efforts by the Complainant, an agreement dated 03.05.2009 was executed for Jaipur Unit by paying fine to the tune of Rs. 1,15,000/- .  A sale deed was registered in 2012 for the Jaipur Unit/Plot.  It is further alleged by the Complainant that she was ready to make payment of Jodhpur Unit as well but the Opposite Parties/company did not accept it on the ground that it had already cancelled the booking for Jodhpur Unit.  Lateron the Opposite Parties sent a Cheque after deductions, for Jodhpur Unit, at the address of the complainant, without assigning any reason.  The complainant did not encash cheque sent by the Opposite Parties.
5. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 19.12.2013 under Registered A/D/Speed Post asking the Opposite Parties to allot plot. She also agreed to pay interest for the delayed payment, if any.
6. The said legal notice sent to Opposite Parties was duly served upon the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not respond to the said legal notice. Hence, this Complaint before this Commission with the prayers to direct the Opposite Parties to allot unit on same price to the complainant, failing which the Opposite Parties be directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs) as cost for harassment and loss at the behest of the Opposite Parties
7. In response to the notice of this Complaint, the Opposite Parties have filed reply refuting the allegations and pleaded that the Complainant has been a consistent defaulter and failed to pay a single rupee after the initial amount after allotment of plot; having been a consistent defaulter she is trying to misuse the judicial process to get undue benefits. The allottees who made timely payment and the complainant cannot be treated at par in Law or in equity.  It is further argued by the Opposite Parties that due to the consistent defaults on the part of the complainant, she was served with notices. She failed to make any further payments and after repeated warnings her allotment was cancelled; she cannot be allowed to take advantage of her own errors or negligence at the cost of another person. It is further argued that the Opposite Parties had honoured the terms of the agreement and strictly in accordance therewith had offered the refund of the payment to the complainant.  In paragraph 6 of its reply to the Complaint, the Opposite Parties state that the complainant had booked multiple plots and had defaulted in making the agreed payment in each case.
8. The Opposite Parties further submitted that since there are disputed  facts which cannot be tried by this Commission and can only  be adjudicated by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
9. Lastly, it was submitted that the complaint that the alleged cause of action arose when the allotment was made and then cancelled i.e. on 07.05.2007 and the present complaint is being filed after a lapse of almost seven years.
10. There is no rebuttal as no rejoinder has been filed by the Complainant to deny the averments made in the reply.

We have heard the parties at length today and gone through the complaint; perused the reply of the Opposite Parties with evidence/documents available on record. It is clear from the record that the Opposite Parties asked the Complainant to make the payment for the Unit/Plot, which was not made by her. Since the Opposite Parties were ready to refund the amount deposited by the Complainant, we feel justice will be met if the Opposite Parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,41,116/- i.e. the money deposited by the Complainant with interest @ 9 per cent per annum to the Complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be entitled to interest over the accrued amount @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till realization.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

A copy of order be sent to all the parties free of cost. The order be also uploaded in the website of the Commission.

File be consigned to the record room with a copy of the order.

 

 

                                         [Poonam Chaudhry]

                                                  President

 

 

[Bariq Ahmad]                                                      [Shekhar Chandra]

      Member                                                                     Member