Case nº First Appeal No. 86 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 20/10/2015 in Complaint No. 47/2013 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) of NCDRC Cases, June 01, 2016 (case 1. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors 2. P.N. Mishra Executive Director-Business Development 3. Vinod Tiku, Chief Operating Officer-Projects 4. Ansal Properties And Infrastructure Limited 5. Neelam Saxena 6. Sanjay K Baliase Vs 1. Suman Bhartiya and Anr. 2. Yashvardhan Mishra)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. Ritesh Khare, Advocate with in person |
| President | Mr. D.K. Jain, President and Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member |
| Resolution Date | June 01, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
-
This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., a real estate developer, and its functionaries, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint under the Act, against the order dated 20.10.2015, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission"), in Complaint No. 47 of 2013. By the impugned order, while allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants, the State Commission has quashed the letter of cancellation dated 25.07.2010, and directed the Appellants herein to issue a letter of instalments to the Complainants with respect to the Unit in question in view of their application form dated 03.02.2010. Further, while directing that no interest or penal interest for the period between the execution of the application and the letter of instalment, to be issued by the Appellants, would be charged from the Complainants, the State Commission has held that the Complainants are entitled to get the possession of the Unit and get the sale deed executed after completing the requisite formalities. The State Commission has also awarded litigation costs, quantified at `15,000/-, with the stipulation that in case the said order is not complied with by the Appellants within a period of two months, they would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainants from the date of each deposit till the date of compliance.
-
On 03.02.2010, the Complainants, the mother and her minor son, had booked a ready to move in Rosewood Duplex Villa, offered by the Appellants in their proposed Hi-Tech Township in Lucknow, christened as "Ansal API Golf City". They paid a sum of `1,77,340/-, vide demand draft dated 02.02.2010 drawn at ICICI Bank Ltd. The Complainants were assured that soon the Appellants would execute the agreement, giving details of the payment to be made for the said Unit. Complainant No.1 had indicated to the Appellants that she was ready to pay the total price of the Unit after getting financial assistance from a Bank, on receipt of agreement and necessary documents, required for obtaining the loan. Despite having waited for many months, the needful was not done by the Appellants. The Appellants informed the Complainants that the allotted Unit being a sample flat of the Company, it would take some time to build a new...
To continue reading
Request your trial