Chandigarh

StateCommission

FA/57/2014

Raman Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Anish Gautam Adv.

25 Apr 2014

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. FA/57/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District )
 
1. Raman Kumar
Chd.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt.Ltd.
Shop No. 101-102, DLF City Centre, IT park, Kishangarh Chandigarh through its Exective Director/ authorized representative
2. Mahesh Gupta
S/o Sh. Y.P.Gupta, R/o HOuse No. 1095, Sector-15/B, Chandigarh
3. M/s NMG Infra Solutions Pvt.Ltd. through its managing Director/ Director Mahesh Gupta S/o Sh. Y.P.Gupta R/o House No. 1095, Sector-15/B,
Chandigarh
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. DEV RAJ MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

                                       

First Appeal No.

57 of 2014

Date of Institution

19.02.2014

Date of Decision    

25.04.2014

 

Raman Kumar s/o Sh.A.R.Sharma, r/o House No.5763-A, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh.

 

…..Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1.    

 

2.      Mahesh Gupta s/o Sh.Y.P.Gupta, r/o House No.1095, Sector 

3.      M/s NMG Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing……Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:

               

                                       

Argued by:Sh. Raman Kumar, appellant in person.

               

Service of respondents No.2 and 3 already dispensed with vide order dated 24.2.2014.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                

2.            

3.        

4.                 

5.            

6.             

7.    

8.     

 

 

9.    

10.           However, the service of respondents No.2 and 3 was dispensed with vide order dated 24.2.2014, as on 24.2.2014 itself, the appellant/complainant made a statement before this Commission that he did not claim any relief against respondents No.2 and 3 in appeal.

11.    

12.           Bharminder Singh Mann Vs. M/s DLF Homes, Panchkula Ltd. & Anr.,

13.           

14.            

15.             

 

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.—

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of     . In this view of the matter, this objection of respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

16.           

 

 

CONSTRUCTION LINK PAYMENT PLAN

 

On Application for Booking

Rs.600000/- (On Plot size ≥ 502 Sq Yds i.e.420 Sq Mtr)

Rs.400000/- (On Plot size < 502 Sq Yds i.e.420 Sq Mtr)

Within 2 Months of Booking

20% of Total Price less Booking Amount

Within 4 months of Booking

10% of Total Price

 

Foundation upto Plinth Level or Within 6 months of Booking, whichever is later

12.5% of Total Price

Casting of Ground Floor Roof Slab or Within 9 months of Booking, whichever is later

 

12.5% of Total Price

Casting of First Floor Roof Slab or Within 15 months of Booking, whichever is later

10% of Total Price

Casting of Second Floor Roof Slab or Within 15 months of Booking, whichever is later

10% of Total Price

Completion of Flooring and tile work or Within 18 months of Booking, whichever is later

10% of Total Price

On filing of Application for Completion Certificate or Within 21 months of Booking, whichever is later

10% of Total Price

On offer of Possession

5% of Total Price + IBMS + Club + Registration + Stamp Duty + Other charges, if any.

 

 

17.            

“21.  

 

18.           

19.           

 

“The Applicant has clearly understood that by submitting this Application the Applicant does not become entitled to the final allotment of the Said Independent Floor in the Said Building/Said Complex, notwithstanding the fact that the Company may have issued a receipt in acknowledgement of the money tendered with this Application. The Applicant further understands that it is only after the issuance of the letter of allotment that the allotment will get confirmed and after the Applicant signing and executing the Agreement and agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions laid down therein that the allotment of the Said Independent Floor shall become final. If the Applicant fails to execute and return the Agreement within thirty (30) days from the date of its dispatch by the Company, then the Company shall have the discretion to treat this Application as cancelled and on such cancellation the Earnest Money (hereinafter defined) along with the Non Refundable Amounts (hereinafter defined), paid by the Applicant, shall stand forfeited. The Applicant is aware that the layout plan/building plans for development of the Said Project are not yet sanctioned by Director Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Chandigarh. The construction will only commence after all necessary approvals are received from the concerned authorities. The Applicant understands that if for any reasons, including non-sanction of the layout plan, the Company is not in a position to finally allot the the Said Independent Floor within a period of one year from the date of this Application, the Company shall refund the booking amount deposited by the Applicant, with simple interest @ 6% per annum, calculated for the period such amount has been lying with the Company for which the Applicant give notice to the Company. The Company shall refund the amounts within 30 days of receipt of the notice from the Applicant. The Applicant understands that the Company shall have no other liability of any kind except the refund of such amounts.”

 

 

 

20.           , as he was well aware that the layout plans/building plans for the development of the said project were not yet sanctioned. Therefore, this contention of the appellant/complainant, being devoid of merit, stands rejected. The case titled, 21.           

22.           

23.           

24.           

25.           

26.           

Pronounced.

April 25, 2014.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Ad


 

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.57 of 2014)

 

Argued by:Sh. Raman Kumar, appellant in person.

               

Service of respondents No.2 and 3 already dispensed with vide order dated 24.2.2014.

 

Dated the 25th

ORDER

             

             

             

             

      

             . The order of the District Forum has been upheld.

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.))

PRESIDENT

 

Ad

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. DEV RAJ]
MEMBER

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.