SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1538 OF 2015
 
1. ANSAL API MEGAPOLIS BUYER'S ASSOCIATION & 13 ORS.
(THROUGH ITS VICE PRESIDENT MR. ANMOL BAGGA, 261, KATRA GUL KHAN SUBJI MANDI,
DELHI-110017
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. ANSAL HI-TECH TOWNSHIP LTD.
(THORUGH ITS MD) 115, ANSAL BHAWAN, 16, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG,
NEW DELHI-110 001
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER

For the Complainant :
For the Complainants : Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate

Dated : 16 Dec 2021
ORDER
  1. This Complaint, under Section 21 read with Section 2(b)(ii) and Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by Ansal API Megapolis Buyer’s Association: a voluntary Consumer Association registered under The Societies Registration Act, 1860, having Registration No. S/1350/2015 along with 13 individual Complainants being Allottees/Plot buyers in the project “Megapolis Green Hi-Tech Township” (for short “the Project”), launched by the sole Opposite Party, namely, Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Ltd. (for short, “the Developer”) in Bulandshahar, adjoining Greater Noida, UP.
  1. According to the Complainants, since all the Complainants have booked their respective Plots in the same Project of the Opposite Party; entered into identical Plot Buyers’ Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) with them and the issues regarding delay in handing over possession, are identical and resultantly almost same reliefs have been prayed for by all the Complainants; the Complaint is proposed to have been filed in a representative capacity under the aforesaid provision. 
  1. The Complainants have sought to place reliance on Order dated 28.08.2015 passed by this Commission in CC No. 120 of 2015, wherein it has been held that the Complainant, being a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, consists of apartment buyers, is therefore a recognized Consumer Association and since the Reliefs claimed are of the same nature and against the same Person, such an Association is competent to file a Complaint. Against the said order dated 28.08.2015, the Builder had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.8423 of 2015 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 16.10.2015 was pleased to dismiss the said Appeal thereby upholding the Order this Commission.
  1. Brief facts as narrated in the Complaint are that the Opposite Party Developer, who is engaged in the business of construction and real estate, had launched “Megapolis Green Hi-Tech Township” (for short “the Project”) in Bulandshahar, adjoining Greater Noida, UP. Allured by the representations and assurances given by the Developer that necessary approvals for the Project have been arranged, the Complainants booked their respective Plots in the Project in the year 2008. At the time of booking of the Plots, the Complainants were informed about the world class facilities in the said Project. The said Project was supposed to be spread over an area of 2504 acres. Thus the Complainants chose the plot of different sizes at different locations as per their budget and made the booking accordingly. At the time of booking they were never shown the Plot Buyer’s Agreement (for short, “Agreement”), which contains different clauses altogether and the same was given to them after a considerable lapse of time and that too for their signatures at the blank space available on each page.  There was no mention of any date of handing over possession in the Agreement but at the time of booking the Developer committed to handover the possession of the plots in 3 years from the date of booking.  It is further averred that most of the clauses of the Buyer's Agreement prepared by the Opposite Party were one-sided and the Complainants were compelled to sign the agreement along with its u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top