Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/131/2019

Jagpati Bai - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary Adv.

15 Jul 2019

ORDER

ORDER

 

                  

 

                    The complainant started making payment whereof 16.02.2010 to purchase a flat from the opposite parties. Allotment letter was issued on 22.03.2010. Specific number of flat was allotted to the complainant. Thereafter, she continued to make payment from time to time as demanded by the opposite parties. Possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered by April 2014. Possession was offered by the opposite parties on 29.10.2016. When possession was not delivered, as per the promise made despite having paid huge amount by the complainant, she came to this Court by filing complaint bearing No.424 of 2018, which, after issuance of notice, was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.01.2019. The said order reads thus:-

        “Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate, Counsel for the appellant states that he would like to withdraw his Power of Attorney as the appellant/complainant is present in person. We permit Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate to withdraw his Power of Attorney.

          The appellant/complainant, namely, Smt. Jagpati Bai is present in Court. She has been identified through her Aadhaar Card bearing No.3177 0820 6169, photocopy whereof has been retained on file. She states that she wishes to withdraw her complaint as the opposite parties have offered out of Court settlement and the matter has been settled between the parties.

          Accordingly, this complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn.

          Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.”

                On 23.01.2019, it was specifically stated that the matter has been settled between the parties. 

                At the time of arguments, it was brought to our notice by the Counsel for the complainant that thereafter, possession of the unit, in question, was delivered to the complainant on 30.01.2019. Now this complaint bearing No.131 of 2019 has been filed claiming the following relief:-

TO PAY INTEREST @12 P.A. ON THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE OPS FROM 01.05.2013 I.E. THE PROPOSED DATE OF DELIVERED OF POSSESSION OF UNIT (BY APRIL 2013) TO THE COMPLAINANT BY OPS TILL 30.01.2019 (I.E. DATE OF DELIVERY OF POSSESSION OF FLATS BY OPS) DATE ALONGWITH FUTURE INTEREST @24% P.A. ON THE SAID AMOUNT AND INTEREST TILL THE ACTRUAL DATE OF REALIZATION ALONGWITH COMPENSATION RS.5,00,000/- FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE, UNFAIT TRADE PRACTICE, FOR PAID, HARDSHIP, MENTAL HARASSMENT SUFFERED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND COST OF LITIGATION RS.1,00,000/- AS OPS HAD FAILED TO DELIVER POSSESSION OF FLAT/APARTMENT TO THE COMPLAINANT WITHIN 24 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF BOOKING AND DELIVERED THE SAME ON 30.01.2019.

AND

TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,02,200/- ETC. (WHICHEVER ARE CHARGED BY THE OPS FROM THE COMPLAINANT BY ALLEGING INCREASED AREA IN THE FLAT) TAKEN FROM THE COMPLAINANT UNDER PRESSURE BY ALLEGING INCREASED AREA OF 201 SQ. FT. FROM 1550 SQ. FT. TO 1751 SQ. FT. WITHOUT PRODUCING ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF/JUSTIFICATION OF THE SAME, ALONGWITH INTEREST @12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE SAID PAYMENT TO TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

AND

TO COMPLETE THE PENDING WORK/DEFECTS IN THE UNIT POINTED OUT BY THE COMPLAINANT VIDE FINAL CUSTOMER OBSERVATION DATED 15.01.2019 OR TO PAY RS.50,000/- FOR COMPLETION OF THE SAME BY THE COMPLAINANT HERSELF.”

 

                Copy of Settlement Deed entered into between the parties on 16.01.2019, by making reference to which, complaint bearing No.424 of 2018 was got dismissed as withdrawn, has also been placed on record as Annexure C-8 (at Page 131 of the file).

                Reading of contents of aforesaid Settlement Deed makes it very clear that vide said settlement, all the issued were settled between the parties and nothing was left to chance. It was acted upon and accordingly, possession was also delivered when complaint was withdrawn on 23.01.2019. It is stated that when possession was delivered, construction of the unit was not complete. To say so, reference has been made to document (Annexure C-11) i.e. a snag list, which was provided to the opposite parties on 15.01.2019 i.e. before  taking possession of the unit in question. It appears that these snags might have been removed because thereafter, complaint was got dismissed as withdrawn and possession was also taken over by the complainant on 30.01.2019. Settlement Deed was also signed on 16.1.2019. As is apparent from the settlement deed, an amount of Rs.6,52,000/- was adjusted towards delayed compensation. Other issues were also gone into and settled between the parties. Once it is so, present complaint is not maintainable. Further when earlier complaint bearing No.424 of 2018 was withdrawn on same facts, in which similar relief was sought without any liberty to file a-fresh one, no fresh complaint lies.

                In view of above, the complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable.

                Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.           

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.