MANISH GARG Vs. ANSAL CROWN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate, for the opposite party.

(2.) Manish Garg (the complainant) has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to return his principal amount of Rs.5849261.00 with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund and any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The complainant stated that Ansal Crown Infrabuild Private Limited (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing projects and selling its units to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a group housing project, in the name of "Ansal Crown Heights" at Sector-80, Faridabad, in the year 2012 and made wide publicity of the rosy pictures of the project and the amenities. One M/s. Rainbow Education Pvt. Ltd. (the predecessors-in-interest of the complainant) booked one 3BHK flat on 20/11/2012 and deposited booking amount. The opposite party allotted Flat No.1104, Tower-4, approx. super area 1788 sq.ft. in project "Ansal Crown Heights", and executed Apartment Buyer's Agreement dtd. 22/2/2013 in its favour. M/s. Rainbow Education Pvt. Ltd. transferred the above flat to the complainant on 5/4/2013. The opposite party acknowledged the transfer of Flat No.1104, Tower-4 approx. super area 1788 sq.ft. in project "Ansal Crown Heights", for Rs.2541824.00, vide letter dtd. 5/4/2013 and also endorsed the transfer in Apartment Buyer's Agreement. Payment Plan was "Construction Link Payment Plan". As per demand, the complainant deposited about 90% of the sale consideration till March, 2015. Clause-4 of the agreement provides that possession would be handed over within 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement. Due date of possession expired on 22/2/2015 but the opposite party failed to complete the project and offer possession to the complainants. The complainant used to inquire about possession from time to time. But all the times the opposite party gave tentative date but failed to meet deadline. The complaint was filed on 6/5/2019, alleging deficiency in service.