Decided on March 24,2009

Ansal Properties And Infrastructure Limited Appellant
Harish Kumar Goyal Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



- (1.)ON the allegations of having denied the possession of two shops booked by the respondent with the appellant and in spite of having deposited the amount with regard to the excess area at the agreed rate and delaying the possession by six years, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 9.9.2008 held the appellant guilty for deficiency in service and given the following directions:
(a) OP (Appellant) will immediately deliver the possession of two shops to the complainant bearing No. 22E and 230E as for the excess area the amount has already been deposited with OP at the agreed rate of Rs. 900. OP will not make an further demand of any amount from the complainant in respect of these shops.

(b) OP (Appellant) was deficient in service in delaying the possession of two shops by six years on account of which the complainant suffers business losses, etc. besides mental agony, harassment for which OP will pay Rs. 4 lacs to the complainant as compensation.

(c) OP (Appellant) will pay Rs. 20,000 towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

(2.)FEELING aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(3.)THE appeal was admitted on the ground that in the complaint the respondent has asked for compensation of Rs. 1 lacs whereas the District Forum has awarded Rs. 4 lac. However, the impugned order has been assailed firstly on the ground that the complaint did not allege the delay in delivery of possession and that the only dispute was the pricing of the increased area which as a matter of policy 10% of the increased area is charged on the booking amount and the rest is charged at the prevailing rate.
In order to appreciate aforesaid contention, the relevant facts pleaded by the respondent in the complaint need to be referred in brief and are that the respondent applied for possession of three shops No. UGF 200E, UG 230E and UG 248E with the appellant in the year 2001. Shop No. UG 248E was handed over to the respondent on 12.12.2001 and the payment were made on 9.9.2002. Offer of possession in respect of two other shops was made only on 7.10.2005 by the office of the appellant. The respondent booked the shop No. UGF 220E for which the sold area of the shop was 228 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 900 while at the time of final settlement of account it was increased from 228 sq. ft. to 271 sq. ft. and area with regard to shop No. UGF 230E was booked with an area of 143 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 900 but at the time of final settlement of account the area was increased from 123 sq. ft. to 211 sq. which the complainant was never informed even though 95% was taken in March 1998. Appellant arbitrarily increased the rate of differential area of the shop from Rs. 900 to Rs. 1,700 for 43 sq. ft. and in the same manner from Rs. 900 to Rs. 1,700 for differential areas of 68 sq. ft. for shop No. UGF 230E. The appellant also levied Rs. 4,020 as interest for Shop No. 220E, however the entire payment was made when demanded. Similarly appellant levied interest at the rate of Rs. 75,975 for the shop UGF 230E. The amount was paid. The escalated price and total amount of Rs. 9,07,766.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.