Complainant in person
Opponent exparte
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 16th July 2013
This complaint is filed by flat owner against builder and promoter u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant has purchased flat from the Opponent in the project known as “Aleria” situated on Nagar Road, Kharadi, Pune 411 014. Opponent is builder and developer. It is the case of complainant that she has paid Rs.38,11,800/- for the cost of flat, covered parking, stamp duty, registration and MSEB charges. The bifurcation of the payment is referred in the complaint in detail. According to the complainant the opponent agreed to deliver the possession of the flat on or before 31st December 2009. As there was delay in delivery of possession and uncovered parking was allotted to the complainant instead of fully covered parking she has filed this complaint. The Opponent is liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. for delay in delivery of possession of three months and as per the agreement. Complainant has asked house rent for three months to the tune of Rs.30,000/- as well as difference of amount between fully covered parking and partial covered parking i.e. Rs.50,000/-. Complainant has also asked compensation of Rs.10,000/- for physical strain and mental agony and Rs.1,000/- by way of cost of litigation.
[2] Opponent though duly served remained absent hence complaint is proceeded exparte against him. Complainant has filed affidavit as well as documentary evidence in support of contention. The evidence which is adduced by the complainant remained unchallenged and corroborated by documentary evidence. On careful perusal of the documents it reveals from the agreement that Opponent agreed to pay interest @ 9 % p.a. for delay in delivery of possession. As per the contents of agreement possession was to be delivered on 31 December 2009. According to the complainant she had received possession 01/04/2010. In order to substantiate this fact she has produced photo copy of license to enter into the flat. This indicates that there was delay of three months for delivery of possession. The next claim of the complainant is as regards allotting uncovered parking instead of fully covered parking. As per the plan of parking slot only 1/3rd car parking is covered and opponent did not comply with the terms of agreement. The complainant has also produced the receipts as regards payment made by her. It reveals from the terms and conditions of the agreement particularly Schedule B that Opponent has agreed to provide one car parking space in the project known as “Aleria”. There are no specifications in the agreement as regards the parking and it cannot be said that opponent agreed to allot covered car parking to the complainant. Hence this claim of the complainant cannot be accepted. It is proved by the complainant that there is delay in delivery of possession. Hence she is entitled to receive compensation on that ground. Complainant is entitled for compensation on the ground of delay in delivery of possession to the tune of Rs.80,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. She is also entitled to receive Rs.30,000/- by way of house rent for three months and sum of Rs.5,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony as well as cost of Rs.1,000/-. In all complainant is entitled to receive sum of Rs.1,16,000/- from the Opponent.
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that Opponent has caused deficiency in service.
3. Opponent is directed to pay sum of Rs.1,16,000/- [Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand] to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. Complainant is directed to collect the sets provided for Member within one month from the date of order. Otherwise those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place- Pune
Date – 16/07/2013
