STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Satnam Singh son of Sh. Rulda Singh, resident of House No.1019/A, Electricity Department Flats, Sector 52-B, Chandigarh, presently residing at House No.98, Sector 77, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Pb.).

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1.  Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory, SCONo.183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

2.  Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory, 115-Ansal Bhawan, 16-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi– 110001.

3.  HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO No.153-155, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Argued by:-

Sh. Varinder Arora, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 2.

Sh. Aditya Kochar, Assistant Manager of Opposite Party No.3.

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking refund of entire amount paid i.e. Rs.45,20,000/-  (which amount is not disputed by opposite parties No1 & 2), towards flat bearing no.234-SF, measuring 1435 square feet, purchased by him, for basic sale price of Rs.45,20,000/-, plus external development charges, preferential location charges etc.,  in a project launched by opposite parties No.1 & 2, under the name and style ‘Victoria Floors”, Golf Links-II, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab (in short the unit), as possession thereof was not delivered to him, by the committed date i.e. 03.04.2015 [total 36 months (30 months plus (+) 6 months extended period) from the date of execution of the Agreement i.e. from 04.04.2012] (date on the agreement ‘04.04.2012’ seems to be wrong as it cannot be prior to the date of application form dated 11.02.2013) , or even by the date of filing this complaint. It was stated that the said unit was purchased by the complainant, for his personal use, as he intended to shift to the said residential flat alongwith his family. It was further stated that by not offering and delivering possession of the unit, in question, by the stipulated date or even thereafter, the complainant was caused great mental torture and harassment. It has been stated that on account of not offering or delivery of possession of the flat, in question, opposite parties No.1 & 2 are duty bound to pay interest to the bank as the entire amount of loan sanctioned by opposite party No.3 has been forwarded by the bank to opposite parties No.1 & 2. It has further been stated that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are not performing their part of contract in accordance to the subvention plan. It has further been stated that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are defaulters and they are not interested in completing the project. Verbal request made to opposite parties No.1 & 2 to refund the amount paid was refused by them. Feeling aggrieved, the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking refund of the entire amount paid, alongwith interest, compensation etc.

2.                  Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 and opposite party No.3 filed their respective replies alongwith affidavits/evidence.

3.                  Opposite parties No.1 & 2, in their joint reply, raised certain preliminary objections to the effect that since the unit, in question, was not purchased for personal use but for speculation and commercial purposes, as such, the complainant being investor, cannot be treated as a consumer; that the complainant has willfully misrepresented facts thus warranting dismissal of the complaint and that the complaint is time barred and the same is beyond limitation as the complainant never sought refund of the