Haryana

Sonipat

176/2014

KAILASH KUMARI W/O RAJESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. OMAXE LTD.,2. BRANCH MANAGER OMAXE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu malik

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.176 of 2014

                                Instituted on:16.07.2014

                                Date of order:21.08.2015

 

Smt. Kailash Kumari wife of Shri Rajesh, r/o H.No.835, Sector 14, Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.  

Versus

 

1.M/s Omaxe Ltd. Regd. Office, 7 Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19 through its Chairman/President.

2.Branch Manager, M/s Omaxe Ltd. Omaxe City GT road, Sonepat.

 

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Ajay GargAdv. for respondents. 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has applied for the booking of a flat with the respondents and the respondents allotted flat no.OWF/Ground/2700 in their project omaxe Wisteria Floors in Omaxe City, F Block, Sonepat and the complainant has deposited Rs.27,90,418/- with the respondents from time to time.  The respondents sent allotment/buyers agreement to the complainant, but since the terms and conditions of the agreement were not acceptable to the complainant, the same was not signed by the complainant.  Further when the complainant visited the site to see the construction of flats, he found that the material being used in the construction of flats was of sub standard quality and there was no satisfactory progress in the construction of flats.  In this way, the complainant has requested the respondents for the refund of the deposited amount, but this request was put off by the respondents and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant did not make the payment of installments due towards the sale consideration of flat in question. The total cost of the flat is Rs.66,73,497/- including addl. Charges and till date the complainant has paid total amount of Rs.27,74,440/- with the respondents including interest. The respondents have sent the allotment/buyers agreement to the complainant which was not signed by her.  The complainant never asked the respondents to amend the terms and conditions of the agreement.   The respondents are constructing the flat as per the standard norms of the Govt.  The complainant has leveled false allegations regarding poor material being used by the respondents in the construction of the flat.   The complainant has not suffered any mental agony, harassment at the hands of the respondents. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by 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.        It is an admitted fact that on 5.6.2014 the respondent  official supplied the agreement in duplicate to the complainant.

          The main contention of the ld. Complainant’s counsel is that the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement are not acceptable to the complainant because the whole agreement favour the respondents.  As per the complainant, she asked the respondents to amend the terms and conditions of the agreement.  But the respondents refused to do so the same.

          The next contention of the ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the material used for the construction of the flat is of poor and substandard quality and satisfactory work is not in progress on the spot.  The complainant also mentioned in her complaint that she requested to the respondents to refund her deposited amount alongwith interest.

          But in our view, all the above submissions are false and baseless, because after 5.6.2014, the complainant never approached to the respondents in any manner.  The complainant never wrote any letter to the respondents after 5.6.2014.  To prove the contention that the poor and substandard quality of material is being used by the respondents for the construction of the flat, the complainant has not produced any lab report or photographs of any kind in support of her claim.  The complainant also never made any written request to the respondents for the refund of her deposited amount.  Further the complainant has not moved any application before this Forum regarding appointment of the local commission for bringing report on the file regarding the substandard material being used by the respondent for constructing the flat. In our view, there is no merit in the present complaint since the complainant has failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  Thus, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.

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

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 21.08.2015