Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/375/2018

Ms Priyanka Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Inderpal Singh Bhinder, Adv.

28 May 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	375 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	04.10.2018
Date of Decision	:	28.05.2019

Ms. Priyanka Singh wife of Mr.Dhirender Kumar, resident of C/o Dr.S.P.Arya, Vasant Vihar, Near Flora Hotel, Saproon, District Solan (Himachal Pradesh).

……Complainant

V e r s u s

The Managing Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

2^nd Address :-

M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., SCO No.183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., through its Authorised Signatory/Managing Directors having branch office at SCO No.337-338, Ground Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

Argued by:

Sh. Inderpal Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for Opposite Party No.3.

Complaint case No.	:	420 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	06.11.2018
Date of Decision	:	28.05.2019

Abhinav Aggarwal S/o Sh. Yashpal Aggarwal R/o House No.2/A, Street No.24, Sector 9, Bhilai, Dist. Durg, Chattisgarh-490009, currently residing at 709 143^rd Avenue N.E. Apt 25, Bellevue, WA, U.S.A.-98007 through GPA Sh.Yashpal Aggarwal.
Yashpal Aggarwal S/o Late Sh.M.L.Aggarwal R/o House No.2/A, Street No.24, Sector 9, Bhilai, Dist. Durg, Chattisgarh-490009.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. having its registered office at 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, K.G. Marg, New Delhi – 110 001, through its Whole Time Directors, Sh.Sushil Ansal and Sh.Pranav Ansal and Managing Director Sh.Anil Kumar.

(Also at : M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., having its office at SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Whole Time Directors, Sh.Sushil Ansal and Sh.Pranav Ansal).

2. Sh.Sushil Ansal, Wholetime Director of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., having its office at SCO No.183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

3. Sh. Pranav Ansal, Wholetime Director of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. having its office at SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

4. Sh.Anil Kumar, Managing Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., having its office at SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Argued by:

Sh. Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

By this order, we propose to dispose of, following cases:-

1.	CC/375/2018	Priyanka Singh	Vs.	M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.
2.	CC/420/2018	Abhinav Aggarwal & Anr.	Vs.	M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.

2. Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts, are the same.

3. At the time of arguments, on 01.05.2019, it was agreed between the parties/their Counsel, that facts involved in the aforesaid complaints, by and large, are the same, and therefore, these complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

4. Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from Consumer complaint bearing No. 375 of 2018, titled as “Priyanka Singh Vs. M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.”

5. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant required a house for her own family use in or around Chandigarh, therefore, she purchased unit No.266 SF in resale in the project of the Opposite Parties, which was originally allotted in the name of Sh.Rajinder Vashishat, for which, Agreement to Sell dated 08.12.2011 was signed between the parties. After filing the application for booking of the unit, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 issued an allotment letter dated 05.03.2012 (Annexure C-1), in which, unit No.266 SF (approx. 1435 Sq. Ft. area) in the Group Housing Project under the name & style of “Victoria Floors” at Ansal API Golf Links-II, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali was allotted with a total price consideration of Rs.43,60,720/- including EDC & PLC. Thereafter, the complainant took loan from Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Indiabulls Ltd. for an amount of Rs.32,80,000/- under subvention scheme and Tripartite Agreement dated 28.07.2012 (Annexure C-3) was executed between the parties. The complainant paid the total amount of Rs.42,11,395/- (Rs.11,36,395/- + Rs.30,75,000/-) in respect of the unit, in question vide receipts (Annexure C-5). However, the builder intentionally issued false copy of transaction statements/customer ledgers to the complainant on 28.08.2018 with details of Rs.39,14,849/- instead of Rs.42,11,395/-. It was further stated that after receipt of more than 90% of the total consideration, the builder failed to transfer the ownership alongwith possession in the name of the complainant, without any reason. Thereafter, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 stopped to pay the pre-EMI interest, as such, the complainant herself paid the said interest installments for the total sum of Rs.15,30,688/-. It was further stated that after making several requests, the builder refund the total amount of Rs.8,00,000/- via two installments in 2017-18 against pre-EMI interest amount. It was further stated that the construction work was incomplete and stopped since January, 2016 at the project site. It was further stated that the complainant felt cheated because after waiting for almost 3 ½ years from the expiry of settled time, as mentioned in the Agreement, till date there is no clarity about the construction works at the exact place of site. The complainant reported the matter to the builder personally as well as through emails & letters but the builder failed to hand over possession of the same. Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure C-7) to the builder but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

6. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their joint written version, have taken objection that the complainant did not fall within the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since the said investment in the property of the replying Opposite Parties is purely for commercial/speculative purposes instead of personal use. It was further stated that in Clause 5.1 of the Agreement, possession of the allotted unit was proposed to be delivered in 30 months time with an extended period of six months from the date of execution of the Agreement or the date of sanction of the building plan/allotment after all the necessary approvals and sanctions had been obtained from the Government/Local Authorities/Sanctioning Authority. It was further stated that a bare perusal of the said clause would thus reveal that time was not the essence of the contract and that the period of 30 months with an extended period of six months for delivery of possession was given on estimate basis. It was further stated that the complaint was time barred, as the cause of action for seeking refund was arisen on 08.12.2014. It was further stated that the apartment booked by the complainant was under subvention scheme and the bank (Opposite Party No.3) has contributed Rs.30,74,830/- and till date, the replying Opposite Parties continued to pay pre EMI interest to the said bank on the said advanced amount. It was further stated that till date, a sum of Rs.3,60,314/- was paid by the replying Opposite Parties to the said bank as tentative pre EMI interest on the said loan amount. Further, the replying Opposite Parties already refunded pre EMI interest of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant, whereas, she contributed Rs.9,31,872/- only from her own pocket. It was further stated that the complainant is not entitled to claim interest on the loan amount advanced by the Bank against which interest has already been paid by the replying Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant was well aware about the progress of the project and she enjoying the pre EMI interest being paid by the replying Opposite Parties to the bank and now when the unit, in question, is almost complete and only statutory clearances are being awaited from the concerned authorities, the complainant in order to earn interest income intentionally and willfully filed the complaint. It was denied that the construction work is incomplete and stopped since January, 2016 at the project site or that unit is lying incomplete and moreover, there is no construction or development. It was further stated that the unit, in question, is nearing completion and soon possession should be offered to the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the replying Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

7. In its reply, Opposite Party No.3 (M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.) stated that the replying Opposite Party financed the loan amount of Rs.32,80,000/-, for which, Tripartite Agreement was executed on 28.07.2012. It was stated that in case of cancellation of the unit or in the contingency of termination of the Agreement, HDFC Limited has the first charge/right to seek apportionment of its dues. It was further stated that no relief has been sought by the complainant against the replying Opposite Party, as such, the complaint qua Opposite Party No.3 should be dismissed.

8. The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, wherein she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

9. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

10. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

11. The objection taken by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, to the effect that the complainant did not fall within the definition of “Consumer”, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the said property was bought by the complainant merely for speculation and not for any personal use, also deserves rejection. The complainant in para No.12 of the complaint clearly stated that the complainant booked the said dwelling unit for her own family use for residing and dwelling and not for any commercial purpose whatsoever. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record, that the complainant is the property dealer, and deals in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the unit, in question, was purchased by her, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 that the complainant being investor/speculator, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, cannot be taken into consideration. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only this, recently in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, under similar circumstances, the National Commission negated the plea taken by the builder, while holding as under:-

“In the case of the purchase of the houses which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose.”

The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

12. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainant, was within limitation or not. It is the admitted fact that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant within the stipulated time frame, as mentioned in the Agreement or even the time when the complaint was filed and on the other hand, amount deposited was also not refunded to the complainant alongwith interest and, as such, there is continuing cause of action, in her favour, in view of principle of law laid down, in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC). Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint is not at all barred by time. The submission of Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

At the same time, once a plea has been taken by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 that the complaint filed is beyond limitation, as such, in the same breath, taking another plea to say that time is not to be considered as essence of the contract, in case of immovable property, has no legs to stand and, is accordingly rejected.

13. Another objection raised by Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 that since it was mentioned in the Agreement that the Company shall “endeavour” to deliver possession of the unit within a period of 30 months with an extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of the Agreement and, as such, time was not the essence of contract, is also devoid of merit. It may be stated here that it was clearly mentioned in Clause 5.1 of the Agreement (Annexure C-2), which was signed between the parties, that the Company shall endeavour to complete the development of residential colony and the dwelling unit as far as possible within 30 months with an extended period of 6 months from the date of execution of the Agreement or the date of sanction of the building plan, whichever falls later. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 failed to prove that due to force majeure circumstances, the possession was delayed, which was beyond the control of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. In the absence of any force majeure circumstances having been faced by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 or any other valid and legal reason beyond their control, the stand taken by them, in this regard, for condonation of delay in delivery of possession of the unit, to the complainant, cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, under these circumstances, since as per Clause 5.1 of the Agreement, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were bound to deliver possession of the unit, within a maximum period of 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, as such, time was, unequivocally made the essence of contract.

Even otherwise, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 cannot evade their liability, merely by saying that since the word endeavour/proposed was mentioned in the Agreement, for delivery of possession of the unit and, as such, time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. Non-mentioning of exact date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) in the Buyer’s Agreement, is an unfair trade practice, on the part of the Builder. The builder is bound to mention the exact/specific date of delivery of possession of the unit(s) to the allottees/purchasers thereof. It was so said by the Hon`ble National Commission, in Rajeev Nohwar & Anr. V/S Sahajanand Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd, 2016 (2) CPR 769. Relevant portion of the said case reads thus:-

“Merely making possession by a particular date will also not meet the requirement of law and the promotor is under a legal mandate to stipulate a specific date for delivery of possession of the flat in the agreement which he executes with the flat buyer”.

In view of above, the plea of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in this regard also stands rejected.

14. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to within which period, the delivery of possession of the unit, was to be given to the complainant. As per Clause 5.1 of the Agreement, it is clear that possession of the unit was to be delivered within a maximum period of 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement and not more than that. In the present case, round stamp on the Agreement, which was executed between the parties shows that Agreement was executed between the parties on 08.08.2011 and as per the said Agreement, possession was to be delivered within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. latest by 07.08.2014 and not more than that.

15. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount actually paid by her. It is the admitted fact that the complainant paid the huge amount with Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in respect of the unit, in question and after receipt of the amount, the builder failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question to the complainant within the stipulated time frame as mentioned in the Agreement or even the time when the complaint was filed. The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of actual physical possession of the unit. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainant, deposited towards price of the unit, in question. The complainant is thus, entitled to get refund of amount actually paid by her. In view of above facts of the case, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are also under an obligation to compensate the complainant, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to her.

16. It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the actually deposited amount, can be granted, in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that huge amount was deposited by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, for their own benefit. There is no dispute that for making delayed payments, Opposite Parties were charging heavy rate of interest @18% p.a. for first three months of delay but if the delay is beyond three months then the interest shall be applicable @21% p.a. compounded quarterly, as per Clause 4.5 of the Agreement, for the period of delay in making payment of installments. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount actually deposited by her alongwith interest @12% p.a. (simple), from the date of purchase of the unit, till realization.

17. As far as the plea taken by the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, at the time of arguments, regarding forfeiture of earnest money is concerned, it may be stated here that the same stands rejected, because it is not their (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2) case, that it was ready with possession of the unit, to be delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date but it was she (complainant) who wanted to rescind the contract, on account of some unavoidable circumstances/ financial constraints, due to deficiency in the services of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 or for any personal reason, and are seeking refund of the actually amount deposited. Had this been the case of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, that they were willing to offer possession complete in all respects by the stipulated time, only in those circumstances, it would have been held that since the complainant herself is rescinding the contract, as such, he is entitled to the actually amount deposited, after deduction of the earnest money, as per the Agreement. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in this regard, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.

18. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

19. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally are directed, as under:-

To refund the amount actually paid by the complainant from her own pocket/sources alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the respective date of purchase of the unit onwards within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, it shall carry interest @15% p.a. till realization.
To refund the entire amount of loan to bank concerned from which loan amount was released in favour of the Builder under subvention scheme alongwith pending pre-EMI interest, if any.
To refund to the complainant, the installment of pre-EMI interest, if any, paid by her, as it was the liability of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 only, failing which, it shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the due date till realization.
To pay compensation to the complainant, in the sum of Rs.1 lac, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to her, failing which, it shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant, failing which, it shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

20. The complaint qua Opposite Party No.3 stands dismissed.

Complaint Case No.420 of 2018 titled as Abhinav Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & ors.

21. It is the admitted fact that the complainants applied for an independent floor/unit for their family and personal use in the project being developed by the Opposite Parties under the name and style of “Victoria Floors, Golf Link-II”, situated at Kharar – Landran Road, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Accordingly, unit No.0164-0-177FF measuring approximately 1245 sq. ft. was allotted to the complainants vide allotment letter dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure C-2) under subvention plan. Thereafter, unit number was changed and the builder allotted unit bearing No.0164-0-139FF vide letter dated 09.02.2013 (Annexure C-1). Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 23.02.2013 (Annexure C-4) for the total consideration of Rs.38,07,625/-, out of which, the complainants paid the total amount of Rs.35,02,446.58. As per the Agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered within maximum period of 36 months from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. by 22.02.2016 but despite repeated requests and visits, the Opposite Parties failed to hand over the same within the stipulated time frame as mentioned in the Agreement or even the time when the complaint was filed, which amounted to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainants are certainly entitled for the deposited amount alongwith interest & compensation.

22. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally are directed, as under:-

To refund the amount actually paid by the complainants from their own pocket/sources alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit onwards within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, it shall carry interest @15% p.a. till realization.
To refund the entire amount of loan to bank concerned from which loan amount was released in favour of the Builder under subvention scheme alongwith pending pre-EMI interest, if any.
To refund to the complainants, the installment of pre-EMI interest, if any, paid by them, as it was the liability of the Opposite Parties only, failing which, it shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the due date till realization.
To pay compensation to the complainants, in the sum of Rs.1 lac, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to them, failing which, it shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants, failing which, it shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

23. However, it is made clear that, if the complainant(s), in the aforesaid cases, have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment of installments towards the said unit, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the complainant(s).

24. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

25. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

May 28^th, 2019.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	420 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	06.11.2018
Date of Decision	:	28.05.2019

Abhinav Aggarwal S/o Sh. Yashpal Aggarwal R/o House No.2/A, Street No.24, Sector 9, Bhilai, Dist. Durg, Chattisgarh-490009, currently residing at 709 143^rd Avenue N.E. Apt 25, Bellevue, WA, U.S.A.-98007 through GPA Sh.Yashpal Aggarwal.
Yashpal Aggarwal S/o Late Sh.M.L.Aggarwal R/o House No.2/A, Street No.24, Sector 9, Bhilai, Dist. Durg, Chattisgarh-490009.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

(Also at : M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., having its office at SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Whole Time Directors, Sh.Sushil Ansal and Sh.Pranav Ansal).

2. Sh.Sushil Ansal, Wholetime Director of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., having its office at SCO No.183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

3. Sh. Pranav Ansal, Wholetime Director of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. having its office at SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

4. Sh.Anil Kumar, Managing Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., having its office at SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Argued by:

Sh. Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately in Complaint Case No.375 of 2018 titled “Priyanka Singh Vs. M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.”, this complaint has been partly accepted with costs.

2. Certified copy of the main order, passed in Complaint Case No.375 of 2018 titled “Priyanka Singh Vs. M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.”,, be placed on this file also.

3. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

4. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

May 28^th, 2019.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/375/2018

Ms Priyanka Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Inderpal Singh Bhinder, Adv.

28 May 2019

ORDER

V e r s u s

V e r s u s

V e r s u s

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

Experties

Phone Number

7982270319