JANARDAN GAUTAM vs ANSAL HOUSING And CONSTRUCTION LTD.

SHRI Janardan Gautam has filed this complaint through his son-in-law Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, as due to old age he was unable to bear exertion. Earlier a complaint was filed before the Hon''ble National Commission (Petition No. 116/2000) and it remained pending there for sometime and O.P. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Limited had also filed its reply and the complainant also filed its rejoinder before the Hon''ble National Commission. However, on 26.4.2001 the Hon''ble National Commission returned the case file on the ground that the claim is highly inflated and with the direction to the complainant to file the same before appropriate Forum. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint before this Commission after reducing the amount of his claim.

THE facts of the case in brief are that in response to the advertisement issued by the O.P. in the newspaper (Nav Bharat Times) dated 26.12.1996 booked a shop No. 0-1-GF-039 at Trade Square Vaishali. THE complainant was assured by the O.P. that the construction work will be completed by 1998 as Honda Car is also opening a showroom in early 1998 and hence the construction work will have to be completed before that. From the brochure as well as from the advertisement the OP was assured that the construction was time bound and was to be completed by the beginning of 1998. THE complainant in response to the demands raised by the O.P., deposited 40% of the total cost of the shop i.e., Rs. 8,59,200/- out of the total cost of Rs. 21,48,000/- between 18.10.1996 to 10.2.1998. THE complainant was promised possession of the shop latest by 1998. However, after waiting in 1998 for the possession of the shop the complainant found that the block has not been constructed. Hence the complainant made request to the O.P. company either to deliver the possession of the shop or to return the money deposited by him with interest. However, the O.P. failed to return the money deposited by the complainant and also failed to deliver the possession of the shop, as it was not constructed on the site. It is alleged by the complainant that the O.P. has failed to develop the commercial complex as advertised by the O.P. company in time and even upto the time of filing this complaint i.e., in May 2001. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint claiming refund of the deposited amount with 18% interest and also compensation for mental agony and harassment on account of delay in the construction of the shop or in the alternative delivery of possession. As earlier stated above, the complaint was earlier filed before the National Commission and the O.P. had filed its written version before the National Commission. Subsequently, the Hon''ble National Commission vide order dated 26.4.2001 refused the complaint to the complainant treating the claim to be highly inflated but gave the liberty to the complainant to make realistic claim for presenting it before appropriate Forum. Consequently, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this Commission on 25.5.2001.

In response to the notice of this Commission the Counsel for the O.P. Mr. Satish Kumar appeared on 29.11.2001 but the O.P. neither filed any reply/written version though opportunity given nor appeared. Hence the case proceeded ex parte against the O.P. The complainant has filed affidavit of Shri Janardan Gautam along with copy of various advertisement issued by the O.P. receipts of the deposit of the amount and various letters written by the complainant to the O.P. enquiring about the progress of the construction and about the delivery of the possession. The complainant has also filed a copy of written version filed on behalf of the O.P. M/s. Ansal Housing and Construction Limited before the Hon''ble National Commission in Original Petition No. 116/2000. However, no notice can be taken of this copy of written version, as neither it is signed by the O.P. nor by its Counsel. Moreover, it has not been filed before this Commission where the O.P. has failed to appear inspite of notice.

WE have heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, attorney of the complainant in person and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. WE have also carefully considered the written submissions filed on behalf of the complainant. From the un-rebutted affidavit of the complainant it is proved that the complainant booked one shop with the O.P. in response to the advertisement in Trade Square Vaishali. The complainant had also paid 40% of the total cost of the shop i.e., Rs. 8,59,200/- up till 10.2.1998. The complainant was assured that the construction will be completed by 1998 but the O.P. failed to deliver the possession of the shop within the assured period. In fact the complainant on verification came to know that no construction has taken place on the proposed site. Inspite of several requests of the complainant, neither the shop was constructed within the assured period nor the possession was delivered. Even the O.P. failed to refund the deposited amount of the complainant with interest and even threatened the complainant that the amount shall be forfeited. The extraordinary delay in completing the construction of the shop and delay in delivery of possession amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. The money deposited by the complainant, has been utilized by the O.P. for its own use and there is a possibility that the same may have been diverted to some other project. The O.P. has also failed to give any satisfactory reply to the complainant regarding the time when the construction will be completed and the possession will be delivered. The O.P. has also not cared to file any reply to the complaint in response to the notice of this Commission. This only indicates that the company, which is a well established Construction Company is hardly concerned with the welfare of the consumers. Due to extra-ordinary delay in the construction of the shop and delivery of the possession, the complainant had to undergo great harassment, mental agony, as well as, financial loss. Moreover due to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the poor complainant has been deprived of his hard earned money and he is running from pillar to post for getting the refund of the money from the O.P. Hence the complainant is entitled for suitable compensation for the mental agony besides interest on the deposited amount. The O.P. is, therefore, directed to refund the amount of Rs. 8,59,200/- deposited by the complainant together with interest @ 15% on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till refund. The O.P. is further directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. The above directions should be complied with by the O.P. within 30 days of receipt of this order. If the amount is not paid within the prescribed period the rate of interest shall be enhanced from 15% to 18%. The present complaint filed by the complainant is disposed of in above terms. Complaint disposed of.