SUNIL GUPTA Vs. ANSAL TOWNSHIP INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant Sh. Sunil Gupta & Anr. against the opposite party Ansal Townships Infrastructure Limited.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainants entered into agreement with Ansal Township Infrastructure Limited that is the opposite party on 15.11.2010 at New Delhi. Purpose of complainants was to book a flat of dwelling Unit No.C1129SF, measuring 1394 sq.ft., located at 2nd floor, sovereign floors, Alba, Esencia Sector-67 Gurgaon Haryana. Opposite party sent allotment letter dated 19.10.2010 to the complainants. Tripartite agreement dated 19.2.2011 was executed among complainants, opposite party and HDFC bank. Opposite parties sent an offer of possession letter to the complainants dated 28.06.2013. As per Claus 5.1 of BBA, opposite party had to hand over the flat within 30 months from the date of execution of the BBA, that is in 2013. Total amount paid by the complainants was Rs.82,26,572/- instead of Rs.71,94,800/- which was the original price. Basic sale price of the flat was Rs.66,50,000/-. Deficiencies which the complainants pleaded on part of the opposite party were that even after the stipulated period as per the BBA, possession of the flat was not given. Opposite parties collected extra amount of Rs.10,31,772/- from the complainants. This conduct of the opposite party does amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage. The learned counsel reiterated the facts of the complaint and stated that though the possession has been taken by the complainant he has paid more amount as was mentioned in the Builder buyer agreement and hence he is entitled to get the refund of those amounts. It was particularly stated that the opposite party has taken money for the alleged excess area of about 160 square feet whereas the fact is that there is not increase in the area of the flat. As per the builder buyer agreement, the possession was due after 30 months, however, even after completion of the due date of possession the possession was not delivered and more and more money was demanded from the complainant. As the builder was in a dominant position the complainants paid all the amounts demanded by the builder and now after getting the possession those illegal amounts are being asked for refund. With respect to the delay in filing the complaint the learned counsel stated that this was a continuing cause of action and therefore, the question of delay cannot be raised in the present case.