Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/541

GAURSONS INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AWADESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

14 Sep 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 29.09.2015

Arguments heard on 14.09.2015

Appeal No. 541/10

In the matter of:-

M/s. Gaursons India Ltd.,

Having its Registered Office

At 305, Arunachal Building

19, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi                                                                                     …..........Appellant

 

Versus

Shri Awadhesh Kumar,

S/o Shri G.R. Omrey,

R/o Flat No.743, Samrat-IV,

Gaur Green Avenue,

Abhay Khand-II, Indirapuram,

Ghaziabad, (UP)                                                                                  ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta Member (Judicial)

 1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 OP Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. Aggrieved by order dated 12.05.2010 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi, the OP has come in the present appeal. Briefly stated the facts are complainant / respondent booked a residential apartment No.743 in Gaur Green Avenue Abhay Khand-II, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, UP for Rs.45 lacs. Admittedly facts are that complainant has paid entire amount and possession has been delivered to the complainant.
2. Disputed facts are that appellant was to handover the possession by 31.03.2007 but it gave the possession on 27.01.2008.  According to the appellant time for delivery of possession was rescheduled to 30.09.2007.  The OP pleaded that time was extended due to some reasons beyond its control. The District Forum found that OP failed to show that delay was beyond its control.  That finding has not been challenged.
3. Anyhow, what is in challenge is period of delay. The District Forum has awarded penalty for delay at the ageed rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month for 14 months. The order recites that OP admitted there was delay of 08 months.  Both the things are wrong.  The delay comes to 10 months from 31.03.2007 to 27.01.2008. Thus, OP is liable to pay Rs.99,650/- for 10 months @ Rs.9965/- per month, instead of Rs.1,39,510/- awarded by the District Forum.
4. The other controversy is regarding claim of Rs.98,000/- towards 14 months rent.  As observed earlier, the delay is of 10 months and not 14 months.  There is no evidence of payment of rent by the complainant. Moreover, when the complainant is getting penalty for that period at the agreed rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month, he cannot claim dual benefit, one by way of penalty for late possession and other by recovering rent.
5. Third controversy is regarding refund of Rs.12,000/- charged by OP towards maintenance charges from January, 2008 @ Rs.3,000/- per month.  The complainant has claimed said amount on the ground that there was seepage, leakage etc. in the flat and water logging in one bath room have not been rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. To refute the same, the appellant drew our attention to possession letter DW-3 which is available on the file of District Forum. The same bears date 27.01.2008 and contains the signature of the complainant / respondent below recital that he has checked all items in his apartment thoroughly.  Everything is as per specifications as mutually agreed upon and he has no complaint regarding the apartment.
6. In view of the same, it is not open to the complainant to say that there was seepage or water logging or shortcomings in the flat.
7. We agree with the submissions of the appellant.  Thus, claim on said account is untenable. That being say there was no question for mental agony and harassment.  Thus, directions to pay Rs.1,50,000/- on that account including rent paid by the complainant is not sustainable.
8. The sum awarded on account of cost of litigation is quite reasonable, being Rs.10,000/- only.
9. To sum up the order of District Forum is modified as below”-

 

1. OP to pay Rs.99,650/- to the complainant for delay in delivery of possession of flat.
2. OP to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

The appeal is accepted in part and impugned order is modified as above.

            One copy of this order be sent to both parties free of cost as per rules and one copy may be sent to District Forum.

            After compliance report is filed, FDR of appellant be returned after due formalities.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

jk