SHRADHA ANAND Vs. ANSAL HI TECH TOWNSHIP LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint is filed by the applicant and 22 others jointly in respect of flats booked by them in the project 'Megapolis Green Hi Tech Township' located in Bulandshahar (near Bodaki), adjoining Greater Noida, UP, in 2007. Buyer's Agreement was signed subsequently, ranging from 2 months to 1 year from the date of booking, in respect of individual Complainants. As per clause 4.1 of the Agreement, possession of the flats was to be handed over within 42 months from the date of signing the agreement. However, as the project had not been completed as on the date of filing the complaint, the Complainants have approached this Commission for relief.

(2.) It is submitted by the Complainants that a joint complaint has been filed as it involves common issues/ grievances with a similar relief being sought. It is averred that the Opposite Party - M/s Ansal Hi Tech Technologies Ltd., was guilty of unfair trade practices and deficiency in service as after putting out advertisements promising flats in a modern township, it had collected deposits but failed to execute the project despite a commitment in the Buyer's Agreement to do so in 42 months and providing various assurances. The delay is alleged to be willful and inordinate and despite the OP's letter dtd. 22/7/2011 informing that the project was free from any land title related issues or farmers agitation. As the project has not been completed even after 10 years of its launch and, in the case of complainant no.1 who booked the flat on 25/11/2009, possession has not been provided by 24/5/2013 the stipulated date of possession, the complainants are before this Commission with the following prayer:

(3.) The complaint was filed under Sec. 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A total of 30 impleadment applications have been taken on record. The complainant has filed affidavit in evidence and written submissions. However, the opposite party has not filed either affidavit in evidence or written submissions. Its request to treat the affidavit recorded in the order dtd. 10/4/2018 as written reply was disallowed on 6/8/2020 as it was opposed by the learned counsel for the Complainant. As per this affidavit the OP has submitted that 11 allottees have settled the matter with it. However, a plain reading of this document reveals that what is being termed as a 'settlement' by the Opposite Party is actually an offer to provide alternate flats in another tower. Further, it is not stated whether the allottees who have been offered this option have accepted it. Lastly, the names of these 11 allottees are not found in the list of the complainants before us. This document, though taken on record, therefore, has no relevance to the present case.