ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Vs. PREETI SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Petition, Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 12.03.2019, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 793/2018, whereby the Appeal, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent herein, has been allowed and the Petitioner herein has been directed not to recover the maintenance charges from the Complainant till the infrastructure, facilities and amenities, as shown in the brochure, are developed in the township and requisite completion and occupancy certificate is provided to the Complainant. Further, sums of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- were awarded as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs, to be paid to the Complainant within one month, failing which the said sums were directed to carry interest @ 9%.

(2.) The Appeal had been filed by the Complainant against the order dated 12.09.2018, passed by the District Forum Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 424/2017. By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant.

(3.) The facts in brief, as culled out from the Complaint, are that the Complainant had purchased two plots, i.e. Plot Nos. B-0068 and B-0154, in "Sushant City", to be developed by the Petitioner herein on Ajmer - Kishangarh Road, Ajmer. Two sale-deeds were executed between the Complainant, the Petitioner as the Developer and one M/s Bajrang Realtors Pvt. Ltd., being the owner of the entire plot. The Complainant was assured that necessary documents relating to the project/scheme would be sent. The sale deeds, which had been executed by the authorized signatories of the Petitioner and the Owner, were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar. Even after a lapse of seven years, the facilities/amenities, referred to in the different advertisement articles/brochure, were not provided by the Petitioner in the "Sushant City", inasmuch as there was no arrangement/provision for security, drinking water, park, shopping mall, retain chain stores, multi-cuisine restaurants, playground, health club, fitness centre, school etc. Further, the maintenance agency, authorized by the Petitioner herein, was not maintaining the project/scheme and trying to recover maintenance charges unilaterally fixed, with interest. Vide letter dated 14.06.2016, followed by email, the Complainant requested the Petitioner herein to provide a copy of the agreement executed between the parties on 25.04.2006, permission letters received from the District Collector as also local body but all in vain.