Back
CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Dev Raj, Presiding Member and Mrs. Padma Pandey, Member
NAVJYOTI SINGH - Appellant
Versus
ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Respondent
Complaint case No. 395 of 2017
Decided on : 06-11-2017
Sh. Gagan Bajaj, Advocate, for the Complainants; Mr. Rachit Kaushal, Advocate, for the Opposite Parties No. 1; Ms. Anjali Moudgil, Advocate, for the Opposite Parties No. 2
The entitlement to refund, interest, and compensation under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 due to delayed possession of a residential unit.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - Delayed Possession - Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 17
Fact of the Case:
The complainants purchased a residential unit but did not receive possession within the stipulated time. They filed a complaint seeking refund, compensation, and litigation charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainants were entitled to a refund of the deposited amount with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and litigation charges. The court also dismissed the complaint against the second opposite party.
Issues: Delay in possession, entitlement to refund, compensation, and litigation charges
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainants were entitled to a refund due to the inordinate delay in offering possession of the unit. It also ruled that the complainants were entitled to interest on the refunded amount and compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
Final Decision: The court partly accepted the complaint against the first opposite party, directing them to refund the amount with interest, pay compensation, and litigation charges. The complaint against the second opposite party was dismissed.
ORDER
Dev Raj, Presiding Member. - The facts, in brief, are that the complainants purchased an independent residential dwelling unit bearing No. 194 measuring 1220 sq. ft. in Victoria Floors, Ground Floor, in "Golf Links-II", Sector 116, Mohali, by depositing a booking amount of Rs. 50,000/- with Opposite Party No. 1, vide application form dated 14.02.2012 (Annexure C-1). A Floor Buyer's Agreement was signed between the complainants and Opposite Party No. 1 (Annexure C-2). The complainants paid another amount of Rs. 5,92,462/- to Opposite Party No. 1 on 24.02.2012 (Annexure C-3). The complainants opted for construction linked payment plan, which was sent along-with the Agreement. The total price of the unit, excluding External Development Charges and Preferential Location Charges, was fixed at Rs. 41,48,000/- i.e. @Rs.3,400/- per sq. ft., (Annexure C-4). The complainants also took home loan from Opposite Party No. 2 and home loan agreement dated 29.08.2012 was executed between the complainants and Opposite Party No. 2 (Annexure C-5). Thereafter, a Tripartite Agreement was executed between the complainants and the Opposite Parties and a loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- was sanctioned (Annexure C-6).
2. After execution of the Agreement, the complainants continued paying the amount as and when demanded by Opposite Party No. 1, which have been reflected in the Customer Ledger (Annexure C-7). It was stated that as per Clause 5.1 of the Buyer's Agreement, possession of the unit was supposed to be delivered within 30 months, with an extended period of six months from the date of execution of the Agreement but the possession has not been handed over by the Opposite Parties till date.
3. It was further stated that the complainants belonged to a middle class family and they bought the unit, in question, for their living but due to the act of Opposite Party No. 1, they have been forced to live in a rented accommodation and have been paying a rent of Rs. 35,000/- for the rented accommodation i.e. H.No. 1007, Sector 36-C, Chandigarh, as per registered rent deed dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure C-8).
4. It was further stated that the construction of the flat has stopped since June 2015 and completion of the promised amenities along-with the said unit would sufficiently take long time. It was further stated that even till the filing of the complaint, the complainants have not received any epistolary intimation regarding handing over of possession nor have they received the unit and its subsidiary facilitation.
5. Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of Opposite Party No. 1, the complainants filed the instant complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking refund of Rs. 40,83,462/- with interest @15% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till realization; Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation charges.
6. It may be stated here that on 31.05.2017, Sh. Sachit Kaushal, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 and he was directed to file his Vakalatnama on the next date of hearing. He also sought time to file reply and evidence/affidavit on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1, which he could file on or before the next date of hearing with advance copy to the Counsel opposite. However, Ms. Anjali Moudgil, Advocate, who put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, filed her Vakalatnama and written statement and evidence/affidavit on 31.05.2017 itself. The matter was then adjourned to 21.06.2017, 13.07.2017 and 26.07.2017. However, on all the three dates, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 and on 26.07.2017, Opposite Party No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte by passing following order:-
"Despite many opportunities given, neither anyone has put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 nor cost imposed on the last date of hearing has been deposited/paid. It
