JANARDAN GAUTAM Vs. ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Janardan Gautam has filed this complaint through his son-in-law Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, as due to old age he was unable to bear exertion. Earlier a complaint was filed before the Hon'ble National Commission (Petition No.116/2000) and it remained pending there for sometime and O. P. M/s. Ansal Housing and Construction Limited had also filed its reply and the complainant also filed its rejoinder before the Hon'ble National Commission. However, on 26.4.2001 the Hon'ble National Commission returned the case file on the ground that the claim is highly inflated and with the direction to the complainant to file the same before appropriate Forum. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint before this Commission after reducing the amount of his claim.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that in response to the advertisement issued by the O. P. in the newspaper (Nav Bharat Times) dated 26.12.1996 booked a shop No.0-1-GF-039 at Trade Square Vaishali. The complainant was assured by the O. P. that the construction work will be completed by 1998 as Honda Car is also opening a showroom in early 1998 and hence the construction work will have to be completed before that. From the brochure as well as from the advertisement the OP was assured that the construction was time bound and was to be completed by the beginning of 1998. The complainant in response to the demands raised by the O. P. , deposited 40% of the total cost of the shop i. e. , Rs.8,59,200/- out of the total cost of Rs.21,48,000/- between 18.10.1996 to 10.2.1998. The complainant was promised possession of the shop latest by 1998. However, after waiting in 1998 for the possession of the shop the complainant found that the block has not been constructed. Hence the complainant made request to the O. P. company either to deliver the possession of the shop or to return the money deposited by him with interest. However, the O. P. failed to return the money deposited by the complainant and also failed to deliver the possession of the shop, as it was not constructed on the site. It is alleged by the complainant that the O. P. has failed to develop the commercial complex as advertised by the O. P. company in time and even upto the time of filing this complaint i. e. , in May 2001. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint claiming refund of the deposited amount with 18% interest and also compensation for mental agony and harassment on account of delay in the construction of the shop or in the alternative delivery of possession.

(3.) As earlier stated above, the complaint was earlier filed before the National Commission and the O. P. had filed its written version before the National Commission. Subsequently, the Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 26.4.2001 refused the complaint to the complainant treating the claim to be highly inflated but gave the liberty to the complainant to make realistic claim for presenting it before appropriate Forum. Consequently, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this Commission on 25.5.2001.