STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Sh.Gurpinder Singh son of Sh.Balwant Singh, resident of House No.108, New Officers Colony, Patiala.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director.
2. Regional Manager, M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

              .... Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

Argued by:        Sh.Pankaj Khullar, Advocate proxy for Sh.R.C. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                         None for the opposite parties (Defence struck of).

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                The complainant moved an application dated 05.02.2012, to the opposite parties, for purchase of a residential unit, in their project launched by them, under the name and style of ‘Golf Links-II’, Mohali, Punjab. He was allotted unit no.275, ground floor, measuring 1395 square feet. Total price of the said unit was fixed at Rs.48.50 lacs, including preferential location charges, external development charges etc. It is case of the complainant that to book above said unit, he paid an amount of Rs.4,97,488.75ps., as booking amount. It was specifically assured by the opposite parties, at the time of sale of the said unit, that all the necessary approvals, to raise construction and sell the project were available with them. Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 14.03.2012. Clause 5.1 of the said Agreement reads thus:-

“Subject to Clause 5.2 and further subject to all the buyers of the Dwelling Units in the said scheme, Golf Links II, making timely payment, the Company shall endeavor to complete the development of residential colony and the Dwelling Unit as far as possible within 30 (Thirty) months with an extended period of 6 (six) months from the date of execution of this Agreement or the date of sanction of the building plan whichever falls later.”

2.         Clause 5.2 of the Agreement envisages that Company can ask for reasonable extension of time to hand over possession of the unit, under force majeure circumstances. It is case of the complainant that as per Agreement, he was offered construction linked payment plan, however, subsequent thereto, it was revised.  Other terms and conditions of the Agreement remained the same.  It is further case of the complainant that he had paid all the installments, as per schedule. For some delay, penal interest was paid. It is further case of the complainant that to make payment towards price of the said flat, he also raised loan from the HDFC Bank. By 16.04.2015, he had paid an amount of Rs.37,47,404.72Ps., in the following manner:-

3.         End date to deliver possession of the constructed unit, after development was fixed on 13.03.2015. The complainant had paid more than 90% of amount towards price of the unit, however, delivery of possession was not in sight. Matter was taken up with the opposite parties, however, the complainant failed to get any positive response, indicating firm date of possession. As such, he wrote an email to the opposite parties on 17.10.2016,