Amla Lal vs Ansal Properties and Industries Limited

MR. Justice Ashok Bhan, President-Appellant herein, who was the complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'' for short), has filed this appeal against Order dated 11.1.2005 passed by the State Commission in Complaint Case No. C-123 of 1994 whereby the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are: Appellant/ complainant on the basis of the advertisement and brochure published by respondent No. l (hereinafter referred to as ''R-l'' for short) for residential flats in Sushant Apartments, on 6.6.1990, approached respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as ''R-2'' for short) for allotment of the said flat and deposited Rs. 33,000 towards initial cost of construction/booking amount. She further paid an amount, of Rs. 12,500 as premium as demanded by R-2. Appellant was allotted flat No. A-3002 in the above said apartments. It is stated that till 7.7.1993, appellant paid Rs. 3,75,334.75 towards the said flat. On 9.8.1993, R-1 informed the appellant that the blocks to accommodate 122 allottees were nearing completion and two more blocks were being constructed and few more facilities were being provided but on reaching the site, appellant did not find any track of construction on the site and, on 21.8.1993, appellant wrote to the respondents protesting against the heavy demand of external developmental charges in spite of there being no construction of the flats. Even the sector road was not constructed. That on 24.2.1993, respondents raised another demand of Rs. 58,068. As for three years from the date of allotment, the flat allotted to the appellant was neither constructed nor any facilities mentioned in the brochure were made available, the appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking following reliefs: "(a) direct the respondents to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,88,642.35 along with interest at the rate of 24% on the said amount till the date of realization; (b) pass any other order/orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

DURING the pendency of the complaint, appellant sought refund of the amount deposited by her. Respondent, in pursuance to the request made, refunded Rs. 3,62,830 to the appellant on 23.10.1995 and cancelled the allotment.

RESPONDENT resisted the claim alleging that as per the demand plan, i.e., Plan ''C'', which the appellant had opted, the cost of flat which was allotted to the appellant was Rs. 6,29,475 and that is for 6 years. That as per the Plan 9% of the above-said amount was payable at the time of making payment for earnest money and 48% was payable in 12 quarterly installments of 4% each starting from 15.7.1996. That 36% of the above said amount was to be paid in 12 quarterly instalments of 3% each with interest @ 15% p.a. calculated at yearly basis and the remaining 7% was payable at the time of possession of the flat. That as per allotment letter, the possession was to be given on 11.7.1994 which the appellant did not pay as a result of which the allotment was cancelled. Thus, respondents prayed for dismissal of the complaint denying any deficiency of service on their part.

STATE Commission, after taking into consideration the evidence led and the pleadings filed by both the parties, partly allowed the complaint holding that even if the contention of the Counsel for respondents is accepted that possession was to be handed over as per 6-year payment plan in the year 1996, still, construction of flat allotted to the appellant was not completed by the said period as in the year 1993 there was no trace of construction of the flat and it was because of that the consumers were given the option to opt for 3-year payment plan instead of 6-year payment plan. That this lapse on the part of the respondents amounted to deficiency in service for which the appellant is required to be compensated.

TAKING overall view of the fact that the amount paid by the appellant had already been refunded in the year 1995 whereas the last payment was made by the appellant in the year 1993, State Commission awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant.

BEING aggrieved by the Order passed by the State Commission, petitioner has filed this First Appeal.

COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.

IT is not disputed before us that the last payment was made by the appellant of Rs. 29,034 on 24.7.1993, which was the 15th installment towards the cost of the flat. Vide letter dated 25.7.1993, respondents informed the appellant that they have received requests from some other buyers who have opted for 6 month payment plan schedule to take possession of the flat and the latter has to hand over the possession of the flats to them in March, 1993 so that others can be accommodated strictly on the basis of first-cum-first serve basis by making payment so as to place it at par with others who opted for 3-year payment plan. Appellant was informed that in case she was not interested, then, she should let them know so as to enable them to intimate the payment to be made by her for exercising this option. In response to this letter, appellant requested the respondent to give a definite period or time to hand over the possession of the flat, as on her visit to the site, she found that there was no construction of the flat allotted to her.

POSSIBLY in view of the slow pace of construction, the appellant had stopped paying further instalments. Thereafter, on the request made by the appellant, respondent refunded a sum of Rs. 3,62,830 deposited by the appellant. This amount was accepted by the appellant without any protest though her grievance was that she had not been awarded the interest for the period for which the money was lying deposited with the respondent. In construction activities, the amount received by the developer is invested towards the construction of houses. The money paid by the appellant had been invested by the builder for carrying out the development activities. Appellant had voluntarily asked for the refund. Last payment was made by her was on 24.7.1993 and the amount was refunded to her in the year 1995. Since, the amount had been voluntarily withdrawn by the appellant, question of payment of interest on the deposited amount would not arise. Taking overall view of the fact that the construction had not been completed within the period of 2 years, the State Commission has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 by way of compensation, which in the given circumstances, is just and appropriate. A case of further enhancement of the compensation or payment of interest on the deposited amount is not made out. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.