Delhi State Commission Holds 'Ansal Properties & Infrastructure' Liable For Failure To Deliver Flat's Possession Within Stipulated Time

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms Pinki (Judicial Member) held 'Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.' liable for deficiency in service for its failure to deliver the possession of flat within the stipulated deadline. Brief Facts: The Complainants booked a unit in 'Green Escape Apartments', Sonipat, with Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. (“Builder”). They made an initial payment of Rs. 2,14,327/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 42,86,544/-. On making the payment, an Apartment Buyer's agreement was executed in the Complainants' favour. As per the agreement, the Builder was required to finish the construction within 42 months, with an additional extension of 6 months. Therefore, the deadline was set for 14.02.2016. The Complainants followed the payment schedules. However, the Builder failed to deliver the possession of the unit within the stipulated time. Repeated inquiries regarding the construction status yielded no response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainants filed a consumer complaint in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“State Commission”). The Builder failed to file a written statement within the statutory time limit. Observations of the State Commission: The State Commission perused the Apartment Buyer's agreement and noted that the Complainants had indeed bought a unit in the Builder's project. Further, the Complainants paid Rs. 27,93,825/- out of the total consideration amount of Rs. 42,86,544/- for the same. Reliance was placed on Arifur Rahman Khan & Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544], wherein it was held that a developer's failure to deliver a flat within the stipulated contractual timeframe constitutes a deficiency of service. The State Commission then referred to Clause 5.1 of the agreement, which obligated the Builder to complete the construction within 42 months from the execution date. Even after the provided extension period of 6 months, the Builder failed to meet this timeline and did not deliver possession. Therefore, the State Commission found the Builder guilty of false assurances and in breach of its contractual obligations. As a result, the State Commission directed the Builder to refund the amount of Rs. 27,93,825/- with 6% interest per annum. Additionally, the Builder was ordered to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- for legal costs. Case Title: Mrs Sumita Jain and Anr. vs M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. Case No.: Complaint Case No. 85/2020 Advocate for the Complainants: Mr Mukesh Gahlot Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Mr Shalini Bhardwaj Date of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024Click Here To Read/download The Order

Delhi State Commission Holds 'Ansal Properties & Infrastructure' Liable For Failure To Deliver Flat's Possession Within Stipulated Time

Smita Singh

Tags