NOIDA: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has ordered M/s Ajnara India Ltd, a Noida-based real estate developer, to compensate a customer with Rs 1.71 lakh plus 6% interest within 30 days, after they failed to deliver a flat booked in 2018 or refund the booking amount. The developer is also required to pay Rs 4,000 as a penalty for litigation costs and causing mental distress.
The order, issued by Commission president Anil Kumar Pundir and member Anju Sharma on Saturday, stipulates that the interest on the outstanding amount will be calculated from the filing date of the complaint in 2020 until full payment is received.
Rani Kanchan Lata Kumari, a resident of Dadri, filed the complaint on November 20, 2020, claiming she purchased a unit in the developer’s project at a quoted price of Rs 32.41 lakh. She booked the flat on August 16, 2018, after paying Rs 11,000, and later made additional payments as requested by the builders.
Despite her payments, the builders did not provide an allotment letter or any updates. “After numerous attempts, I was informed that the project was on hold, and they signed an indemnity bond promising to return the full sum deposited,” she explained.
The complainant stated that she submitted all required documents for cancellation but received no acknowledgment or receipt. “Eventually, I decided to address the issue legally and issued a plea notice on August 18, 2020, but no action followed,” she added.
The developers’ counsel refuted the claims, asserting that the complainant intended to buy a unit in Ajnara Olive Greens. They contended that, due to a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order, the Ajnara Ambrosia project was halted, thereby affecting operations of other projects. Consequently, they argued, the complaint should be dismissed.
Upon reviewing both parties’ documents, the commission noted that the complainant persistently requested a refund, but the developers refused. “The NCLT order pertains to the Ajnara Ambrosia project, not Ajnara Olive Greens; thus, the defendants demonstrated a deficiency in service by failing to initiate work on the project and not refunding the deposited amount,” the commission concluded.
