KRISHNA CHAUDHURI Vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short "the Act") in challenge to the Order dtd. 8/11/2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Complaint No. 382 of 2019 whereby the complaint of the complainant was partly accepted.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainants') and the learned counsel for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'builder company') and perused the record including the State Commission's impugned Order dtd. 8/11/2019 and the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) The brief facts are that the builder company had entered into an agreement with Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma son of Jaggi Dutt and Sh. Lalit Kumar Vashisht son of Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma, residents of H. No.1357, old no. 560, New Railway Road, Dayanand Colony, Gurgaon whereby Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma and Sh. Lalit Kumar Vashishisht were allotted the apartment no. 04 on 04th floor in Tower No. 26 having a super area of approximately 119 sq. mt. (1275 sq. ft.) in the proposed Group Housing Complex of the builder company. The said Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma and Sh. Lalit Kumar Vashisht vide agreement to sell sold their rights, title and interests of the said flat to the complainants for a total consideration of Rs.5,16,375.00. Therefore, the complainants had been assigned with the rights and liabilities as per the endorsement dtd. 23/11/2007 under the agreement by Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma and Sh. Lalit Kumar Vashisht and the said endorsement was duly confirmed by the builder company and transferred their allotment rights in favour of the complainants. The builder company had sold the said flat at the basic rate of Rs.1500.00 per sq. ft. i.e. at a total basic price of Rs.19,12,500.00 to the complainants and the possession thereof was to be delivered to the complainants by 2010. It is alleged that the complainants had paid a sum of Rs.7,59,250.00 to the builders as per the schedule towards the purchase of the flat. It is further alleged that the builder company had not even constructed its second floor and had failed to handover the physical possession of the flat to the complainant within the assured period. The complainants made request for refund of the amount of Rs.7,59,250.00 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum but the builder company had not acceded the request.