New Delhi District Commission Holds Ansal Properties And Infrastructure Limited Liable For Failure To Deliver Flat Within Stipulated Time And Initiate Refund

Brief Facts:

The Complainants decided to purchase a flat in the Green Escape Apartments, Sonipat, advertised by M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited (“Builder”). They booked a 1690 sq. feet flat for Rs. 33,87,400/-, paying a booking amount of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The booking was acknowledged by the Builder, and an allotment letter was issued. As per the agreement and payment schedule, the Complainants paid a total of Rs. 13,61,236/- to the Builder by 2012-2013 for the said flat. The Builder issued a statement of account reflecting these payments. Assurances were made by the Builder at the time of booking that construction would be completed within 42 months from the booking date, with possession to be handed over thereafter. However, upon visiting the site two to three years later, the Complainants discovered no construction had commenced.

Despite repeated visits and inquiries by the Complainants, the Builder failed to initiate construction or provide possession of the flat. Legal notices were sent, followed by reminders for a refund. The Builder issued a cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- towards part payment of the outstanding amount. Due to the Builder's inaction, the Complainants were compelled to purchase an alternate flat at nearly four times the price, financed through a loan from the Bank of Baroda in 2018.

As per the agreement, possession should have been handed over within 42 months, with an extended period of 6 months. This deadline lapsed on 22.10.2015, making the opposite party liable for compensation for the delay, calculated at 80 months till June 2022. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainants filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi (“District Commission”).

The Builder failed to file the written statement within the statutory period. Therefore, its defence was struck off.

Observations of the Commission:

At the outset, the District Commission noted that there was an undeniable and significant delay in handing over possession of the flat in question, constituting a deficiency in service. It held that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines 'unfair trade practices,' as encompassing any unfair method or deceptive practice employed to promote goods or services. Further, the District Commission referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta, where it was established that failure to hand over possession within the stipulated period not only constitutes deficiency of service but also qualifies as an unfair trade practice.

Similarly, the District Commission cited the Supreme Court's decision in Fortune Infrastructure and Anr. vs Trevor D'Lima and Ors., affirming that individuals cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of a flat and are entitled to seek a refund of the amount paid along with compensation.

The District Commission deemed the cause of action as ongoing since the Complainants had neither received a refund of the amount advanced nor possession of the flat within the stipulated time, thus falling within the period of limitation.

Consequently, the District Commission directed the Builder to refund the amount of Rs. 11,61,236/- to the Complainants with an interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of each deposit, payable within four weeks from the receipt of the order. Additionally, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as the cost of litigation was awarded to the Complainants.

Case Title: Ms Payal Singh and Anr. vs M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited

Case No.: C.C. No. 146/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order