RANVIR SINGH GARG vs ANSAL HOUSING LIMITED

tlanvir Singh Garg vs M7's.

Ansal BEFORE RAJENDER KU OFFICEFI, HARYANA REAL AUHORI:I'Y, GURUGRAM Com Date Ranvir fiingh Garg son of late S Ayudh \/ihar, Sector-13, Dwar Versus M/s.

Ansal Housing Limited, ThroughL its Managing Director Having its Regd.

Office at 606, 6th Floor, Indra Prakash, 2 BarakheLrnba Road, New Delhi.

Corporate Office: - Ansal Plaza,2F, AHCL, 2.,a Vaishali, Ghaziabad.

APPEARANCE For Conrplainant: For Respondent Mr.

None ORDER is a ,:omplaint filed by Ra r section 31 of The Real t) Act, 2016 (in brief Rule 28 of The Haryana Real 1 tate Limited , ADJUDI )q,TE R]'GU int No.49.18- Decision: 21.05 .

Moti Ram, R/o New Delhi , Arrsal PJ,azta, Respondent lSingh Garg ( ( Act of 2OL6l /,f I I 1 I l I -l R.anvir Singh Garg vs M/s.

Ansal Developrrent) Rules, 2OLT, Limited (promoter/ developer). r\ccording to complainant, "Ansal r\partmerLts Project (the "proj respondent, on a parcel of land Gurugrart, Tehsil and District lt'hat the respondent is a Pnivate is duly irrcorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and is conrluct business and i1.s Managing Director. the respondent gave ;5r picture about the proj t relied upon the sferred to the complainant. the son of the complainant ,25,687 /- on 28.O2.2O11, Rs.

3 2 je,:t site and then, bo ent by investing he errt's project under con proje,:t site and , amouLnt of Rs.

64,O7,O15 st M/s.

Ansal H Estella" is a ) being tuated at the unit r:arned 5i,000/- on tieil by 03, ich the the ited Comp€uty, pro',,isir:ns resprcnsible f( rc:n da'y-to-day anrd The son ents and ion llinl,led which was arnount cl ia. thr: te<1 in fon {; kD llanvir Singh Garg vs M/s.

Ansal Rs.

1,00,000 / - on I.6.2O l.

1, Rs. rand Rs.

5;,43,045 /- on 11.8.2011 'lhat the booked apartment was the complainant in the n 13.0L.2O1,2 along with total i}L,68,980/- and the resiclential over for 1945 sq. ft 3BHK flat. l\s per the terms and conditi executed on 2.6. ed on 2.6.2012, t]ne ith the terms and condition of offer p,ossession of the flat/ in commitment/agreed peri stipula.ted grace period of .12.20La;. at the complainant also filed st the respondent for the ,75,OOO /- and the same is Dispute Resolution the complainant paid a ,68,O4O /- till 2L.OL.2OL4. to ssued a letter to claim t even g Limited ,77,7481- on 5. sferrr:d by of comp paid a:mount it was also s of the: r:rrt could not e argreetnent and it to ttre com of 36 months er 6 rnoreths i consumer iJllegal demand tot;al a:rno:unt e respondent the of' on Rs. ed t ply ilerl t not till rint Rs. before the , Drelhi.

B.

9. ,q.-AD f(anvir Singh Garg vs M/s.

Ansal lpossessic,n is being offered 02.12.2OL5.

The complainant r:esponde:nt on many occasions unit.

That the complainant had m of total ccnsideration and the re possession of the Unit deli trest to them.

That the: complainant filed a tailed 4 thority for the possession of comp ent to pay the interest @ .12.2O15 till the handing over allowed the That th,3 respondents .6.20 15 and have not even to any concerned auth In view of the facts mentioned sought following reliefs: - .

To pass €rt order and give n responilent as it (respondent) ng Limitedl the e several Par,rment of ent.hasi de r:r for rea.sons pl.ajnt before the flat an<l the t and di .l;O% per ann ttre possession deliver: tlhe for eu:y , the c:om directions l.ierble l"o pay @ Oo/o the the l";tu Fianvir Singh Garg vs M/s.

Ansal per sq, feet per month cal area of unit/flat for every 2.L2.2015 to till date, to the term and condition of the totalling to Rs.

8,75,25O l-.

2.,.

To p€rS,S an order for a loss of unit in question, as complain similar type of unit even in suffered loss of about Rs.

S0, 3,.

To improse penalty upon the provisions of Section 60 of default committed by them.

1.

To impose penalty upon the provisions of section 61 o contravention of Sec.

L2, 13, (R&D) Act.

5.

To direr:t the respondent to monthl,f rent 2.L2.20L5 till L7 ,40,OOO / - of Rs. / - of Rs.

2O,OOO / - date for 87 tecl on super plairrant as ent dated 2.L pprreciation of cannot le pricr: and ,ooo / -. llFt&D) Ac,t 161 RE (lR&lD) t.

14 an.d 16 paynrent for asi marl<et value ths totalling th of delay up .e.:f. the 1,5 of the ad dent as the tas for RE q. sa Flanvir Singh Garg vs M/s.

Ansal 6.

To direct the respondent to p4y ?ccoUrrt of mental irreparable sufferance to the being old and senior citizen. i'.

To direct respondent to pay charges to the tune of Rs.

3, 000/- for matter and hence he is liable 8i.

To issue directions to concerrred i.e.

Director, other officer of the instance, connivance, offences has been committed of RE(R&D) Act, 2OL6 to be 20L7. for the r:riminal offence of breach of trust under section 4 t0.

To award/allow costs of complainant and against the t, a55onies e' of fts.

2O,OO zrccount of li th,e get the cost for i liable every , Sec,retar5r, t compan:y at , neS5lect any rnentioned in 6tl vyith IIAIREAR the fraud and , tlo6 and 409 esle pror:eeding (L 6 F.anvir Singh Garg vs M/s.

Ansal I 1.

Any other relief, which deem fit and appropriate in circumstances of this '.12.

On.

30.

Ll .2023 responden service of notice nor any wri calling matter several ti procee<led exparte on 30.11. was struck off. l-3.

Th,e complainant filed support of his complaint.

L4.

I ha','e heard learned perused the case file.

I5.

As described above, complaint before Haryana Author:[t1,, Gurugram, charges of the amount, w A copy of such order is on complaint, the Authority has to pay irrterest at the rate o month of delay on the t praicl rt ; vie'w of the record. s Honble Au di<l not appear reply was filed Respondent 3 ia.nd clefence vit in t had Estate delay has already dated 30.03 the 9l.3Oo/o p.il. for by 7 AO R.anvir Singh Garg vs M/s.

Ansal flousing Limited (compl;ainants) from due date of olfer o[ possession titl actual hemding over the possession of unit.

It6.

As per section ls (l) of Act of 2016, if promoter fails to complete or unable to gl. ble to gl.v,: po,ssession of arrr erpartment, plot or building, - (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specifiecl therein, (b)--------, he rshall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the all>ttee wishes t<r withdrarv from the project, wit[rourt prejudice to any t, plot or buifding, as the crase may be, with interest a.t such :r.ate as rrta}r be pres<:,ribed in this behalf in clotmpensation, in the nranner as provided this rlct.

17.

Needless to say that comp clid not wish to withdra'iv from the project but pralred for delayed possession compensation by g a complaint with the: Authority.

The said com t has already been ction (1) of section 18 e does not inte[rdl to other remedy available, to by him in respect of that allowed.

Proviso added to sub makes it clear that where an al withdravir from the project, he promoter: interest for every mon the arnount received shall br: praid by the of delay till ha{rding ild P- A(D Rern'v'ir Singh Garg vs M/s.

Ansal over of prossession at suc,h rate RuIe 15 (1'l of The Haryana Real :may be Developnnent) Rules 2Ol7 purpose of proviso to section 1 section 4l and sub section 7 of the rate prescribed" shall be higher th an marginal cost of provision of interest is in the fi the buye:r, when the promoter fails to com project ir:L agreed time.

The par provide compensation separately lhe amournt described above.

18.

When complainant has rlelayed possession com rseparate compensation for the construclion.

Complaint in han lFile be consigned to record room. in case of rlo reasc)n iay in is thus ced in open court today i.e. on 1.,05 .2025. (Iteg'u1a it clear that fr e , sectio:n 1.8 an b tion 19 o'in at 1e to State Bank of rate plus 2%o of comprensati t dicl not y been J,l. jender .dumar) Oflicer, Haryana ,Authorit5r, 9