Blog

CS (OS) 28/2023, I.A. 5503/2022

SUNITA SAMARIA SINGH vs M/S ANSAL BUILDWELL LTD

The current suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff as a commercial suit, seeking recovery of Rs.2,59,90,895/- along with pendente lite and future interest @15% per annum. Matter before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The plaintiff booked a Flat bearing no.F-SF019I, Second Floor, measuring approximately 1644 square feet in the project “FLORENCE PREMIUM FLOORS” launched by the defendant and proposed to be constructed in Sushant Lok-II, Gurugram, Haryana. 

The total consideration for the Flat was Rs.1,25,00,000/- and the plaintiff opted for a construction linked payment plan. The plaintiff paid a booking amount of Rs.14,00,000/-,  and received a receipt on 23rd March, 2016. 

As per the terms of Clause 12 of “Terms & Conditions for Allotments”, which were attached with the application form of the defendant, the possession of theFlat was to be handed over to the plaintiff within a period of 3 to 3 1⁄2 years.

On 23rd March, 2016, the defendant asked the plaintiff to pay the second installment of Rs.12,05,000/-. On 12th April, 2016, the plaintiff paid Rs.11,80,000/- towards the second installment to the defendant, for which a receipt was given by the defendant.

1st May, 2016, the plaintiff requested the defendant to change the allotted floor from, second floor to the ground floor in the same building. The plaintiff also paid the differential amount for the same. The plaintiff also furnished an advance amount of Rs.14,75,100/- towards the payment of the third installment.

On 17th May, 2016, the defendant allotted F-GF019I, ground floor, to the plaintiff, but with a reduced space of 1575 square feet and increased the cost to Rs.1,49,00,000. 

The builder/buyer agreement was executed on 14th May, 2016 between the parties, in terms of which the price of the Flat was Rs.1,49,00,000/- inclusive of External Development Charges (EDC).

On 3rd December, 2016, the defendant issued a demand letter seeking payment of fourth installment seeking payment of upto 40% of the total cost of the Flat.

On the below dates fourth, fifth and sixth installment were paid and receipts were issued by the defendant.  

21st December, 2016	Rs.16,84,490/-
23rd January, 2017	Rs.15,57,050/-
1st March, 2017	Rs.15,63,790/-

On 15th March, 2017, the plaintiff‟s husband, an architect, visited the construction site and noticed poor quality of construction being carried out by the defendant. These were brought to the attention of the defendant through emails on  22nd March, 2017, 23rd March, 2017 and 30th March, 2017.

On the below dates seventh, eighth and ninth installment were paid and receipts were issued by the defendant.  

5th April, 2017	Rs.15,57,050/-,
14th December, 2017	Rs.16,68,800/-
21st April, 2018	Rs.18,40,859/-

On 15th June, 2018, it was informed to the plaintiff by the defendant that the construction work of the Flat was scheduled to be completed within 30-36 months from the date of sanction of the building plan. At that point the plaintiff had paid a total of 90% amount towards the cost of the Flat.

On 17th April, 2020, the defendant demanded tenth installment and stated that the Flat was almost completed including laying of vitrified tile flooring and skirting works, assuring the plaintiff that the remaining work will be completed soon.

On 24th June, 2020 the plaintiff paid the tenth installment of Rs.7,45,000/- (at the point making a payment of 95% towards the cost). 

During the visit of the plaintiff and her husband to the flat on 2nd and 3rd October 2021 they were shocked to know that the construction of the Flat was yet to be completed. The quality of construction carried out was also poor. 

Plaintiff to support her contention had filed along with the plaint photographs of the Flat taken on 3rd October, 2021 to show the poor quality of construction and the fact that the Flat was not ready on the said date.

The plaintiff had sent a demand letter dated 22nd November, 2021 to the defendant requesting the defendant to refund the amount of Rs.1,51,47,340/- along with interest @ 24% per annum, which was the interest rate prescribed in the allotment agreement.

The defendant refused to refund the amount. Therefore, the current suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff as a commercial suit, seeking recovery of Rs.2,59,90,895/- along with pendente lite and future interest @15% per annum.

JUDGEMENT 

The Court passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2,30,33,352/- along with future interest @ 9% per annum. Hence, disposing off all pending applications. 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.
Click here to view your judgement