Haryana

Sonipat

CC/156/2015

Shewta Gupta D/o Surender Nath Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shailender Saroha

11 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                                Complaint No.156 of 2015

                                Instituted on:11.05.2015

                                Date of order:11.04.2016

 

Shweta Gupta daughter of Surinder Nath Singla, r/o Suraj Wollen Mills 0-9, 0-12, Industrial Area near DC Office Panipat.

 

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. Regd. Office 115, Ansal Bhawan, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Manager/Director Shashank M. Jain.

2.Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. Europa Residency, Sushant City, Kundli, Sonepat through its Dy. Manager (Sales) Rajan Pahwa.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Shalendra Saroha Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Mannu Malik Adv. for respondents.

          

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

 

 

O R D E R

 

          The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that an agreement dated 12.1.2010 was executed between the parties and it was agreed vide this agreement for sale of property no.B0008 measuring 973 Sq. yards on ground floor in Sushant City, Kundli on installment basis which were to be completed within 36 months with grace period of 98 days. On 26.12.2012 a letter from the respondents was received by the complainant for substitution of plot C004 instead of B0008 by way of enhancement of area 1265-825 sq. feet. In this way, the respondents have applied different para-meter by way of substitution of property.  The complainant being handicap wrote a letter to the respondents on 24.3.2012.  The complainant has almost made the agreed sale price of the property and the possession was to be handed over within a period of three years. The complainant has also made the payment of enhanced area against her consent, but apart from it, the respondents have charged the parking charges. The complainant has paid Rs.19,86,193/- to the respondents till date and the complainant is not liable to pay the parking charged to the respondents.  So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents appeared and have filed the written statement submitting therein that the complainant is not a consumer of the respondent and the present dispute cannot be termed as a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant has booked a flat in Europa Residency and the unit no.B0008 measuring 975 Sq. feet was allotted to the complainant vide agreement dated 12.01.2010.  As per the clause 10.1(a) of the agreement, the company proposed to hand over the possession of the apartment within a period of 36 months from the date of agreement and the company shall be entitled to a grace period of 90 days after the expiry of the period of 36 months.  The number of the allotted apartment was changed and the reallocation of unit no.C-004 measuring 1265.825 sq. feet was made in favour of the complainant in place of earlier allotted unit no.B-0008 and the letter dated 26.12.2012 was sent to the complainant.  The complainant has accepted the reallocated and deposited the sale consideration amount according to the new payment schedule of the unit no.C-004. So, the possession of the reallocated apartment can be delivered within 36 months of the date of reallocation.  The area of the unit no.C-004 is 1265.825 sq.feet and the basic price of the property is Rs.1800/- per sq. feet (Rs.1725/- basic and Rs.75/- as prime location charges) and a composite charges Rs.325/- per sq. feet i.e. total amount of Rs.4,11,395/- were payable  on account of the composite charges.  The complainant was liable to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- for the open car parking charges.  So, the total sale consideration of the plot is Rs.27,39,889/- plus tax.  The car parking charges were specially mentioned in the agreement and the same is a part of the sale consideration and thus, the same cannot be excluded from the sale price of the property.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that an agreement dated 12.1.2010 was executed between the parties and it was agreed vide this agreement for sale of property no.B0008 measuring 973 Sq. yards on ground floor in Sushant City, Kundli on installment basis which were to be completed within 36 months with grace period of 98 days. On 26.12.2012 a letter from the respondents was received by the complainant for substitution of plot C004 instead of B0008 by way of enhancement of area 1265-825 sq. feet. In this way, the respondents have applied different para-meter by way of substitution of property. The complainant being handicap wrote a letter to the respondents on 24.3.2012.  The complainant has almost made the agreed sale price of the property and the possession was to be handed over within a period of three years. The complainant has also made the payment of enhanced area against her consent, but apart from it, the respondents have charged the parking charges. The complainant has paid Rs.19,86,193/- to the respondents till date and the complainant is not liable to pay the parking charged to the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant has booked a flat in Europa Residency and the unit no.B0008 measuring 975 Sq. feet was allotted to the complainant vide agreement dated 12.01.2010.  As per the clause 10.1(a) of the agreement, the company proposed to hand over the possession of the apartment within a period of 36 months from the date of agreement and the company shall be entitled to a grace period of 90 days after the expiry of the period of 36 months.  The number of the allotted apartment was changed and the reallocation of unit no.C-004 measuring 1265.825 sq. feet was made in favour of the complainant in place of earlier allotted unit no.B-0008 and the letter dated 26.12.2012 was sent to the complainant.  The complainant has accepted the reallocated and deposited the sale consideration amount according to the new payment schedule of the unit no.C-004. So, the possession of the reallocated apartment can be delivered within 36 months of the date of reallocation.  The area of the unit no.C-004 is 1265.825 sq.feet and the basic price of the property is Rs.1800/- per sq. feet (Rs.1725/- basic and Rs.75/- as prime location charges) and a composite charges Rs.325/- per sq. feet i.e. total amount of Rs.4,11,395/- were payable  on account of the composite charges.  The complainant was liable to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- for the open car parking charges.  So, the total sale consideration of the plot is Rs.27,39,889/- plus tax.  The car parking charges were specially mentioned in the agreement and the same is a part of the sale consideration and thus, the same cannot be excluded from the sale price of the property.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          In the present case, an agreement dated 12.1.2010 was executed in between the complainant and the respondents. The details of block/tower no., floor, apartment no., sale area, rate per sq. feet, amount  are as under:-

Block/Tower No.	Floor	Apartment No.	Sale area(in Mtr)	Sale Area( in Sq. feet
B	G.F.	8		975

 

 

Particulars	Rate Per Sq. Feet	Amount
Net Basic Price	1725	1681875
Preferential Local Charges	75	73125
Composite Charges	325	316875
Car Parking Covered Open	Open	50,000/-.

 

 

So, from the above contents of the agreement, one thing is clear that the sale area was 975 Sq. feet.  But the respondents without any permission or consent of the complainant, has enhanced the area from 975 Sq. feet to 1265.825 sq. feet.  In our view, this act of the respondents is wrong and not justified, because the area can be increased or decreased upto 5% or 10%, but enhancement of the area from 975 Sq. feet to 1265.825 sq. feet must have disturbed the entire budget of the customer and it cannot be said to be justified in any manner.

          The complainant in para no.1 of her complaint has mentioned that it was agreed vide agreement of sale of property no.B0008 measuring 975 sq. feet on ground floor in Sushant City, Kundli which were to be completed within 36 months with the grace period of 90 days. Meaning thereby, if the period of 36 months with grace period of 90 days is counted, then it expires upto 1.5.2013.  But it is very sorry state of affairs that upto that period, the possession of the property was not handed over by the respondents to the complainant particularly when the complainant is 75% handicap and helpless and this fact is totally proved from the document Ex.C32 i.e. Disability Certificate.  Further more, as per the respondents, the number of the allotted apartment was changed and the reallocation of unit no.C-004 measuring 1265.825 Sq. feet was made in favour of the complainant in place of the earlier allotted unit no.B-0008.  So, in our view, the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, we hereby direct the respondents to pay interest on the amount lying deposited with them at the rate of 09% per annum w.e.f. 1.5.2013 till the delivery of the property in question to the complainant.  The respondents are further directed to deliver the possession of the unit having area measuring 975 sq. feet in B Block or C Block to the complainant. The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.twenty thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment, mental agony and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member)            (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                       DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 11.04.2016