Delhi

New Delhi

CC/231/2017

Mithan Lal Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ansal Hi Tech Townships Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

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

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

                                             Case No.CC.231/2017                   

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mithan Lal Goel

S/o Sh. Harphool Singh Goel

R/o A-47. Pandav Nagar,

Near Dr Mangla Clinic,

New Delhi-110092                                                  …..Complainant

VERSUS

Ansal Hi Tech Township Ltd.

Through its Managing Director/Director.

Registered Office at:

115, Ansal Bhawan,

16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001                                                   …...Opposite Party

 

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Bariq Ahmad , Member

 

                                                                                                                                                Date of Institution:-18.05.2017                                                                                                                                                                            Date of Order   : -  02.11.2022

ORDER

 

BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Opposite party is engaged in the development marketing of property. The Opposite Party approached the complainant for selling their Units. The opposite parties made lucrative offers.
2. It is stated that complainant was looking for a commercial unit for the purpose of his livelihood. The complainant booked a commercial unit in the above project.
3. It is stated that opposite parties had issued an Allotment Letter dated 06.08.2011 in respect of Shop no. GF-18, Sushant Square, 3A “Sushant Megapolis” having super area of 345.59 sq ft. thereby containing the terms and conditions governing the said deal at a basic rate of Rs 4,300/- per sq. ft. including all other charges such as Preference Location Charges, External Development Charge, Internal Development Charge. Interest free Maintain Security etc except Fire Fighting charges @ Rs. 50 per sq Ft. & Electric Connection Charges @75 Per Sq. Ft of which total cost was Rs.15,29,234.71/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Four and Seventy One Paisa Only), out of which the registration amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs. One Lac Twenty five Thousand only) was paid by the complainant vide Cheque Bearing no. 581795 Dated 24.05.2011 Drawn at Bank of Baroda, Patparganj, Delhi – 110092.
4. It is stated that opposite party had assured complainant that the project would complete within 36 months including grace period from the date of booking and at the time of signing the documents i.e. application form, it was specifically stated that opposite party would give possession by August, 2013. It is also alleged after the date of completion of the project as per their commitments and assurances, the complainant approached the concerned representative of the OP company as to enquire about the status of the project to wait for another 12 months as there was some land issues with the farmers of the land. It is stated that the complainant got a legal notice served on the opposite party. The opposite party did not reply to the legal notice.
5. It is also alleged that the acts of  amount not only to deficient of services but also unfair trade practices. It is prayed that the OP be directed to refund the amount paid by Complainant with interest as promised on 20^th January 2005 and also pay compensation. The OP be directed to withdraw the letter of cancellation of allotment.
6.  It is prayed that OP be directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) paid by the complainant with interest @ 24% per annum and also pay @ 24% p.a. w.e.f. 14.06.2011. It is stated that Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand) be awards towards cost of the litigation and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh)

 

7. Notice of the complaint was served to OP who filed written statement contesting the case, stating inter alia that

 

8. It was alleged that the complainant is not a consumer per se as the complainant had booked two properties in the same project named as Sushant Megapolis". The first was a plot bearing no.144, Sector-3B in Megapolis, and the second is the property in question in this complaint viz. Shop no. GF-18, Sushant Square, 3A "Sushant Megapolis".

 

9.  It was stated that the complainant had moved the Hon'ble State commission in regard to the plot in question and the said matter has been settled by Hon'ble State Commission. The Hon'ble State commission had directed the Opposite Party to refund the booking amount after deduction of earnest money, the amount of Rs. 3,63,728/- has been refunded in three installments.

 

10. That it is pertinent to mention that the timely payment of installments was the essence of any builder-buyer agreement. The complainant had infact not made any payment after paying the booking amount despite repeated reminder after reminder. It is further stated that complainant had also not signed the allotment letter as well. It was also denied that there was no deficiency in service on behalf of OP or OP indulges in unfair trade practice. It was prayed that the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.

 

11. Complainant thereafter filed the rejoinder reiterating therein the contents of the complaint and denying all the allegations made in the Written Statement. Both the parties filed their evidence by affidavit.

 

12. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the record, the fact that Complainant booked a shop with OP is not in dispute from the evidence on record. It is also an admitted fact that OP allotted Shop no. GF-18, Sushant Square, 3A “Sushant Megapolis” having super area of 345.59 sq ft. thereby containing the terms and conditions governing the said deal at a basic rate of Rs 4,300/- per sq. ft. to the Complainant.

 

13. It was contended on the behalf of the complainant that OP was deficient in providing its services as Complainant had made payment total of Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid by Complainant to OP but OP failed to give possession within the 6 months of the date of registration.

 

14. 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.

 

15. We are further of the view that the cause of action being the continuing one as the amount advanced by complainant was not refunded neither possession of the shop was handed over to him, the complaint is within the period of limitation.

 

16. We thus, hold that OP was guilty of deficiency in services. We accordingly direct OP to refund the amount Rs.1,25,000/-/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% 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 directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the delayed period. We also award Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation including cost on litigation.

 

17. 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)                                     

                                                                           Member