Haryana

StateCommission

CC/36/2018

RAJ KUMAR SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NAVEEN SHEOKAND

13 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:23.01.2018

                Date of final hearing:24.05.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement:13.06.2024

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.36 of 2018

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Raj Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Swaroop Sharma, R/o Floor No.E-6/4-FF, DLF Valley, Panchkula.

                                                                             .….Complainant.

 

Through counsel Mr. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.    DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO 190-191-192, Sector-8C, Chandigarh-UT, Pin- 160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-Charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

 

2.    DLF Homes, Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

….Opposite parties.

 

Through counsel Ms. Tanika Goyal, Advocate

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Naveen Sheokand, counsel for the complainant.

Ms. Tanika Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    Present complainant is the husband of Preeti Sharma who is also co-owner of unit in dispute and she has executed a GPA in favour of complainant Raj Kumar Sharma for initiation, filing and pursuing legal proceedings pertaining to the unit in dispute. The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that the opposite parties (“OPs”) floated a housing project under the name and style of “The Valley” situated at Sector-3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex, Panchkula (Haryana). On 22.03.2010, complainant booked a flat in the said project by paying an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- vide receipt No.RVL/CRB/00532/0310 to the OPs. Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the complainant and OPs on 10.02.2011, whereby unit bearing No.E-6/4, 1^st floor with parking No.P-1F was allotted to the complainant. Total cost of the said flat was Rs.32,91,499/- for the saleable area of 1450 sq. ft. It was construction linked plan and as per the said agreement, the flat in question was to be delivered by OPs within 24 months from the date of execution of said agreement, complete in all respect. It was alleged that the OPs failed to deliver the possession of flat within prescribed period and published a news on 13.01.2014 in newspaper ‘Hindustan Times’  whereby OPs made another promise to handover the possession in 2014, but again failed to do so.

2.                It was further alleged that vide letter dated 26.10.2016, OPs informed the complainant that the final area of unit was increased from 1450 sq. ft. to 1575 sq. ft. and demanded an amount of Rs.6,53,403/- . However, the said increase in the area was without obtaining any calculation certificate from the Haryana Country Town Planning Department as well as without any consent from the complainant and the same was violation of Floor Buyer’s Agreement.  Thereafter, vide letter dated 15.12.2017 OPs issued possession certificate and again demanded the huge amount. However, the complainant took possession after depositing entire amount under protest. It was further alleged that it is settled law for builders that there may be either minor (say +2%) increase or decrease in the super area as per as carpet area of each apartment and there should also be change in the layout plan also. However, here in the present case, the OPs increased approximately 13% area without any certificate from the competent authority.

3.                It was further alleged that after receiving possession letter, complainant visited the site and found construction as well as condition of the unit in question was in very poor condition and in actual there was no increase in the area as well.  Apart from this, Ops also failed to provide community hall, covered stilt parking, yoga centre, swimming pool, library etc. as the same were advertised in the brochure/website of OPs. It was further alleged that roads of the whole area was under constriction and lightning of the said area was also missing. There was no boundary walls there and labour was working in most of the flats and neither there was any security check on the entry points of the township nor a proper entry gate with a clean approach road was available.  Due to mala-fide intentions and act of OPs, complainant was harassed mentally and physically. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant prayed for allowing of present complaint and prayed for issuance directions to the OPs to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till the date of possession; to compete the floor and remove the snags which was pointed out in their customer observations; to refund the amount charged on account of excess area; to provide all the basic amenities as advertised in the brochures and to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of litigation expenses.

4.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the OPs, upon which they appeared and filed their written statement by submitting therein that on 22.03.2010 present complainant along with his wife Preeti Sharma booked a flat in the project of OPs. Unit bearing No.E-6/4, 1^st floor with parking No.P-1F was allotted to the complainant by executing Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 10.02.2011. It was submitted that after receipt of occupation certificate, the offer of possession was sent to complainant on 26.10.2016 and the same was taken by complainant on 15.12.2017. However, there was a delay in handing over the possession of unit in question because there was stay on the construction ordered by Hon’ble High Court and thereafter by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India due to third party litigation involving the Acquisition Proceedings of the land of litigants therein in the year, 2010 & 2012 and this litigation was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 12.12.2012. However, the complainant was duly compensated for the same on 10.05.2017 as per settlement dated 08.03.2017 for an amount of Rs.5,23,306/- in accordance with terms of the agreement. It was further submitted that the complainant also benefitted of the price appreciation as is envisaged from the circle rates fixed up by the Haryana State for the said property of Rs.3900/- PSFF & the complainant purchased said unit @ Rs.2050/- and thus benefited by Rs.1850 per sq. ft.

5.                It was further submitted that the price of unit in question as per SOP was Rs.33,63,999/- plus service tax for 1450 sq. ft. however, after occupancy certificate due to increase in area the total price of the property was Rs.40,56,919/- plus service tax for an area of 1575 sq. ft. and the increase in value was due to increase in area of the floor. It was further submitted that the project of OPs is escalation free, as the complainant got the possession of floor on the same price as committed by OPs at the time of allotment of floor through application form dated 22.03.2010. It was further submitted that after dismissal of the litigation as mentioned above, OPs vide letter dated 15.04.2013 offered an option to complainant by accepting refund of his entire amount along with 9% interest, but complainant refused to accept the same and continued with the project with consent of extension of time. It was further submitted that the complainant had already taken possession and executed settlement deed dated 08.03.2017 in terms of the finality of any of the claim and compensation of Rs.5,23,206/-  has already been credited on 10.05.2017 to the complainant and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any further compensation. Other allegations made in the complaint were also denied. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, learned counsel for complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Raj Kumar Sharma as Ex.CA vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents, Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Vinod Kumar, Authorized Representative of OPs as Ex.RA alongwith other documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-20 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

8.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Naveen Sheokand, learned counsel for the complainant and Ms. Tanika Goyal, learned counsel for OPs. With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint have been properly perused and examined.

9.                As per the basic averment raised in the complaint and including the contentions put forth by the learned counsel, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get compensation amount alongwith the interest which he had prayed for or not? 

10.              It is an admitted fact that OPs floated a housing project under the name and style of “The Valley” situated at Sector-3, Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex, Panchkula (Haryana) upon which complainant booked a flat on 22.03.2010 in the said project by paying an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- vide receipt No.RVL/CRB/00532/0310 to the OPs. It is also an admitted fact that Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the complainant and OPs on 10.02.2011, whereby unit bearing No.E-6/4, 1^st floor with parking No.P-1F was allotted to the complainant. At the time of execution of said agreement total cost of the said flat was Rs.32,91,499/- plus service tax for the saleable area of 1450 sq. ft. and it was construction linked plan. It is also an admitted fact that OPs failed to deliver the possession of flat within prescribed period and offered the possession on 26.10.2016 and possession was taken by complainant on 15.12.2017.

11.              Main controversy involved in the present matter is regarding delay in handing over the possession of unit in question as well as increase in the area. As per the complainant vide letter dated 26.10.2016, OPs informed him that the final area of unit was increased from 1450 sq. ft. to 1575 sq. ft. and demanded an amount of Rs.6,53,403/-, but the said increase in the area was without obtaining any calculation certificate from the Haryana Country Town Planning Department as well as without any consent from the complainant and the same was violation of Floor Buyer’s Agreement. However, perusal of record reveals that the price of unit in question as per SOP was Rs.33,63,999/- plus service tax for 1450 sq. ft. however, after occupancy certificate due to increase in area the total price of the property was Rs.40,56,919/- plus service tax for an area of 1575 sq. ft. and the increase in value was due to increase in area of the floor. So, the amount demanded by OPs for increased area was genuine and contention of learned counsel for complainant regarding refund of amount paid by complainant for increased area is not tenable.

12.               Now coming to the second issue which is regarding delay in handing over the possession of unit in question is concerned, in this regard it is pertinent to mention here that there was stay on construction as ordered by Hon’ble High Court and thereafter by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India due to third party involving the acquisition proceedings of the land of litigants therein in the year, 2010 & 2012.  Moreover, as per terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement dated 10.02.2011 and as per clause 11 (a) (b) & (c) of the said agreement, complainant was duly informed about the schedule of possession and as per clause 11 (a), the OPs have to complete the construction of project within 24 months unless there was delay due to force majeure condition or due to reasons mentioned in 11(b) & (c). Since, there was a stay on construction in furtherance to the direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.04.2012 and the stay was vacated vide order dated 12.12.2012, so the OPs took several months for gathering the requisite work force and for resuming the construction work in full swing. So, there was a delay in handing over the possession of unit in question due to force majeure reasons.

13.              Moreover, this Commission cannot ignore the settlement deed dated 08.03.2017 executed between the complainant and OPs according to which complainant has already received an amount of Rs.5,23,306/- as full and final settlement against all his claims. So, the complainant is not entitled for any further claim regarding his unit in question.

14.              In the light of the above observation and discussion, complaint stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.

15.              Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

16.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

17.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 13^th June, 2024                                                 S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III