Haryana

StateCommission

CC/427/2017

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

IN PERSON

24 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Complaint  No.427 of  2017

Date of the Institution:10.07.2017

Date of Decision: 24.01.2019

 

Vijender Singh Malik s/o Sh. Shri Attar Singh Malik and Gautam Malik S/o Sh. Sh. Vijender Singh Malik, both residents of Flat No.C-1/6 (Ground Floor), DlF Valley, Sector-3, Pinjore-Kalka Urban Complex, Panchkula. Pin 134107 (Haryana)

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

 

1.      DLF Homes Panchkula through its MD, SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8, Chandigarh.

2.      M/s DLF Limited, DLF Shopping Mall, 3^rd Floor, Arjun Marg,  DLF City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                .….Opposite Parties

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                    Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Vijender Singh Malik,  Advocate for complainant.

Mr.Parveen Jain, Advocate counsel for opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Complainant-Vijender Singh Malik filed complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”) pleaded therein that complainant booked independent floor in the project of company namely “The DLF Valley” situated at Panchkula.   He paid booking amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the O.ps. The allotment letter to this effect was issued on 22.03.2010.  The basic sale price of the unit No.C-1/6 GF was fixed at Rs.33,87,524.97 excluding EDC, IDC, PLC, MSE etc. and buyer’s agreement was executed on 14.12.2010.    He paid all due installments from time to time and without any kind of delay on his part.  O.P. alleged that complainant had delayed the payment which was demanded by them vide letter dated 09.07.2013, which was never received by me.  However, I made the payment of installment and delayed interest charges of Rs.21713/- under protest.  Further vide letter dated 15.01.2014 O.ps. charged Rs.4828.79 as difference of delayed interest from him. Vide letter dated 29.10.2016, the Ops offered the physical possession of the above mentioned floor and asked them to deposit the amount of Rs.20521.39 as delayed interest. The complainant sought clarification from DLF regarding delayed interest charges but O.P. did not bother to reply to the letter.  Ultimately, he deposited the delayed interest charge again to get the possession of the flat under compulsion to get rid of rented accommodation. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the O.Ps. and the reply was filed, wherein the averments taken in the complaint were  strongly denied and refuted and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Preliminary objections about complainant is not consumer,  locus standi,  Jurisdiction  etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.                On merits, the O.ps.  were committed by the terms and conditions executed on 14.12.2010 and were giving the possession of the flat  at the same price as was committed at the time of allotment of the floor on 22.03.2010.   The complainant has been charged DLI of Rs.25,350/- for 138 days. The delayed interest of Rs.25,350.18 was as per the final statement of account.  The price of the property as per SOP was Rs.48,11,389.04/- plus service tax, but due to increase in area, the total price of the property was Rs.53,58,197.40/- plus service tax for an area of 1751 sq. ft. The complainant has only deposited Rs.51,77,568.35/- and remaining amount has not been deposited by the complainant and resultantly there was a DLI of Rs.25,350.16/- levied against account for a delay of 138 days.  The demand was legally raised by the O.ps.    O.Ps. offered the possession of the floor on 29.10.2016.  All the basic amenities have been provided by the O.ps. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, complainant Mr.Vijender Singh Malik in his evidence has tendered the affidavit 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-9 and closed his evidence.

6.                On the other hand in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant the O.Ps. had also tendered the affidavit  of Mr.Shiv Kumar as Ex.RA and also tendered documents Ex.R-1  to R-12 and closed his evidence.

7.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Vijender Singh Malik  the complainant appeared in person as well as Mr. Parveen Jain, the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  With their kind assistance the entire records including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led by the parties during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

8.                As per the basic averment taken in the complaint and the reply filed thereto including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the basic and foremost question which requires adjudication by this court as to whether the excess amount has been charged as a interest from the complainant?

9.                As a matter of fact and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant as well as that of the O.Ps. a floor was booked by the complainant and the entire demand has already been made, consequence thereof, the possession of the flat has already been delivered to the complainant. The only  question it has been raised by the complainant is that an excess amount of Rs.47063/- has been charged by the O.Ps inspite of the fact that no intimation was conveyed to him by the O.ps.  Had he been informed well in time, he could have paid the amount of the installment in time. However, this contention is not legally sustainable as whatever the documents  as he has referred, these documents have been sent to the complainant at his given address by a Blue Dart Courier services  who is well known renowned courier services available in the tricity area and on most of the documents, there is a stamp of the service provider and the signatures has also been obtained that of the complainant, as such, it is not justifiable by the complainant to allege that one document on the basis of which, the delayed interest of Rs.47063/- has been charged is of no consequence that all the documents has been sent through courier services and deemed to be delivered unless and until returned for want of specific reason and it is only due to the late payment of the particular amount for which the delayed interest of Rs.47063/- has been legally charged by the O.Ps.  This question is accordingly stands answered.

10.              With the above observation and discussion, though there is a voluminous documentary evidence led on behalf of both the parties, but keeping in view the given dispute arising between the parties this was the basic issues which are dealt by this Commission and complaint being devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

 

January    24th, 2019             Manjula,                     Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                    Member                      Judicial Member                                                                               Addl. Bench               Addl.Bench               

S.K.