IMPORTANT POINT
Valid Redressal – flat purchasers cannot be made to wait for inordinate period of time hoping to seek possession and that refund of amounts deposited is a valid redressal.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member.—The present consumer complaint has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainants against the Opposite Party, M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi in respect of Opposite Party’s project Fernhill in Sector 91, Gurgaon, Haryana.

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainants, in response to the promotional advertisements of the Opposite Party, booked a Villa measuring 5030 sq ft., (Number 0705 – GH – 002) in a township being developed by the Opposite Party in Fernhill, Sector 91, Gurgaon, Haryana by paying Rs.16,87,565/- on 02.12.2011. An allotment letter was issued for the villa to the Complainant on 02.12.2011 by the Opposite Party for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,68,75,650/-. The project was promised to be completed within four years plus six months grace period, i.e., by 10.11.2018. The Complainants paid Rs.71,67,611.94 between 22.11.2011 and 07.08.2014. The Opposite Party executed the Buyer’s Agreement on 10.05.2014. It is submitted by the Complainants that the Opposite Party did not commence construction on site till September 2016. In the meanwhile, claiming that construction has commenced, the Opposite Party continued to collect further deposits. Due to the repeated efforts of the Complainants to exit from the project in view of the continued delay in executing the project and to get a refund of the money deposited with the Opposite Party, on 22.09.2016, the Opposite Party agreed to refund the amount deposited by the Complainants along with 8% interest in instalments in acceptance of the fact that the project had not been satisfactorily concluded. Subsequently, in February and March 2017, two cheques of Rs.10 lakh each were paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. Thereafter, the settlement was not complied with. According to the Complainants, by agreeing to refund the instalments deposited by the Complainants with interest, the fact of deficiency on OP’s part is admitted. The Complainant is before this Commission with the prayer that the Opposite Party be directed:

i. To refund the entire amount paid by the Complainants along with penal interest at the highest possible rate as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice (compounded quarterly), keeping in view the fact that the rate of interest mentioned in clause 4.5 and 4.6 of the Agreement (Annexure C- 1) as fixed by the OP itself is @ 24% compounded quarterly/ per annum for making claim against the Complainants;

ii. Further, the OP may also be directed to pay Rs.3.00 lakh towards compensation for physical and mental harassment and agony suffered by senior citizen and old complainants with multiple medical problems;

iii. Towards cost of litigation of Rs.1.00 lakh and fee paid;

iv. Beside any other cost/ compensation etc., which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the facts and circumstances;

v. The complainants joint allottees be permitted accordingly to pursue the complaint.

3. The Opposite Party has contested the claim of the Complainants on the grounds that the Complainant ceased to be a consumer as the allotment of the villa in the project was cancelled and therefore this complaint is not maintainable. Also, as the flat Buyer’s Agreement was between the Complainant and M/s Samyak Project Private Ltd., who is not impleaded as a party to these proceedings by the Complainant, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the complaint is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction as the settlement agreement was for Rs.71,67,611.94. It is further contended by the OP that the project was not promised to be completed by the Opposite Party within four years or that there was any time bound schedule for the same. The OP was in a joint venture with M/s Samyak Projects Pvt., Ltd., who was to commence the construction. The allotment was cancelled at the request of the complai