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

2023 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1702

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. 234 OF 2018

1. ANIL RANA

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S. ATS ESTATES PVT. LTD. & ANR.

THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS,
REGD. OFFICE AT: 711/92, DEEPALI NEHRU PLACE,

NEW DELHI-110019.

2. M/S. ATS INGRASTRUCTURE LTD.

REGD. OFFICE AT: 711/92, DEEPALI NEHRU PLACE,

...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:

&nbsp

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,MEMBER

For the Complainant :

Mr. Aditya Parolia, Advocate

: Mr. Nitin Chandran, Advocate

: Ms. Sambul Ismail, Advocate

For the Opp.Party :

Mr. Sandeep Thukral, Advocate

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: M/S. PSP LEGAL
For the Respondent: MR. KAPIL KHER

ORDER

1.      Heard Mr. Aditya Parolia, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Sandeep Thukral, Advocate, for the opposite parties.

2.      Anil Rana has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) refund Rs.5768544/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of actual payment, (ii) pay Rs.500000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iii) pay Rs.100000/-, as litigation cost; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.      The complainant stated that M/s. ATS Estates Private Limited and M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd. (the opposite parties) were companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., who was owner of the project land, entered into development agreement dated 20.07.2007, with M/s. ATS Estates Private Limited, by which, the works of development and construction of the project and selling its unit were assigned to M/s. ATS Estates Private Limited (the opposite party). The opposite party launched a group housing project, in the name of “ATS Golf Meadows” at villages Sadhemajra and Madhopur, tehsil Dera Bassi, district S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, in the year 2012 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. The complainant booked a villa on 09.02.2012 and deposited booking amount of Rs.1900000/-. The opposite party allotted Villa no.-226, “ATS Golf Meadows-1”, area 500 sq. yard, total sale price of Rs.188/- lacs and executed Buyer’s Agreement in his favour on 09.03.2012. Under Payment Plan entire consideration was payable in 5 instalments. Last instalment was payable on offer of possession on 08.02.2013. The complainant deposited total amount of Rs.5768544/-. Clause-11(a) of the agreement provides that the opposite party will offer possession within 36 months from the date of allotment subject to timely payment of the instalments and force majeure reasons. Clause 11(c) provides a grace period of 120 days. Although due date of possession expired in September, 2015 but the opposite party did not offer possession. The construction was moving at very slow pace and was not likely to be completed till 2020. Therefore, the complainant, vide email dated 04.05.2016, requested to cancel his allotment of villa No.226 and transfer his money for allotment of Plot No.115-116, “ATS Golf Meadows-1” but the opposite party did not respond. Then this complaint was filed on 23.01.2018, alleging deficiency in service.

4.      The opposite party filed its written reply on 26.04.2018 and contested the matter. The opposite party did not dispute, booking of the villa, allotment of the villa No.226, execution of Buyer’s Agreement dated 09.03.2012 and deposits made by the complainant. The opposite stated that allotment letter was issued on 21.07.2012 and received by the complainant on 23.07.2012 and the complainant has deliberately made false allegation in this respect. Annexure-1 of the agreement contained “Time Linked Payment Plan” under which Rs.6667750/- was required to be deposited till 14.05.2012. The complainant deposited Rs.19/- lacs, on 09.03.2012, Rs.1940052/-, on 01.08.2012 and Rs.1928492/-, on 31.07.2013 (total Rs.5768544/-) although till November, 2012, Rs.16067750/- was payable. The opposite party raised construction by expending Rs.58/- lacs. The complainant stopped payment of instalment as such the construction was not proceeded further. EDC was statutory charge. Delayed payment of EDC attracts 10% interest and 3% delayed penalty. The opposite party issued demand/reminders dated 05.06.2014, 05.09.2014 and 05.12.2014 but the complainant did not respond.  The complainant was a rank defaulter in payment of instalment and failed to perform his obligation under the agreement. Clause 11(a) of the agreement was subject to timely payment of the instal

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top