JAGDISH CHANDRA Vs. ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD.
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) J .D. Kapoor, President ''Unfortunately, the original complainant, Jagdish Chander, has expired during these proceedings. He was 80 years
old when he filed the complaint in the year 2000. Now his wife, Smt.
Kaushalya Devi, has been substituted as a complainant and because of the
complainant being a widow and very old, we have taken up this case on
priority basis as large number of complaints more than ten years old are
pending inspite of the fact that several hundreds have already been
(2.) BEING induced by the opposite parties (in short O.P. ), the complainant, on 18.9.1995, booked one commercial flat having a
tentative area of 593 sq. ft. for Rs. 10,37,750 by paying 10% as booking amount. Subsequent payments
were construction linked as the commercial flat was to be constructed in
a commercial complex of Plot No. 1, J -Block, Commercial Centre, Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi. Upto 30.1.1997 the complainant made payment of Rs.
6,40,099. As per the agreement between the parties, the construction was to be completed by 1999 and the complainant was assured that the
construction would be completed by then. But in spite of his having made
payment of Rs. 6,40,099 against the construction amount of Rs. 10,37,750,
there was no trace of construction at the site. As a result, he asked for
the refund of the amount paid with interest. However, the respondent did
not refund the amount and consequently the complainant filed the instant
complaint claiming following reliefs:
(a) to direct the respondents to refund Rs. 6,40,000 with interest @ 24% per annum or award of Rs. 6,40,000 with interest @ 24% per annum till the payment of suit amount in favour of the complainant and against the respondents;
(b) award the cost of complaint in favour of complainant and against the respondent;
(c) pass such an order as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) IT is pertinent to mention at this stage that during the pendency of this complaint, the respondent had made payment of Rs.
3,87,795 on 7.5.2005 as per interim orders of this Commission.
While justifying the non -refund of the balance amount, the O.P. has taken the plea that as per the agreement, the O.P. was entitled to
forfeit 20% of the basic cost and refund the balance without interest. It
was in view of this clause that it has refunded the amount of Rs.
3,87,795 out of Rs. 6,40,099. The O.P. has also justified its forfeiture of 20% of the basic cost on the plea that there was no deficiency on the
part of the O.P. in raising the construction by the stipulated time, as
by way of a letter the O.P. had asked the complainant to come and take
possession of the flat that after making the balance payment, it was
followed by reminders.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.