Haryana

StateCommission

CC/435/2017

SUNITA GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SATYAWAN AHLAWAT

29 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Complaint  No.435 of  2017

Date of the Institution:14.07.2017

Date of Decision: 29.01.2019

 

1.      Sunita Garg w/o Sh. Sh.Anand Garg R/o 1049-A Sector 2 Panchkula Haryana.

2.      Rajesh K.Goyal s/o Sh. Sh.Sita Ram Goyal R/o 1049-A Sector 2 Panchkula Haryana.

                                                                   .….Complainants

Versus

 

1.      DLF Ltd. SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C,Chandigarh.

2.      M/s DLF, Homes Panchkula Pvt. ltd., DLF Valley, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula through its Authorized signatory/Officer.

                                                .….Opposite Parties

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Satyawan Ahlawat, Advocate for complainant.

Mr.Parveen Jain, Advocate counsel for opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The brief facts given rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that   on 23.09.2010, they booked a floor No.B-1/64, second Floor in DLF Valley, Pinjore, Panchkula having measuring 1544 sq. ft.  Apartment Buyers agreement was executed between the parties on 10.01.2011.  The price of the flat was fixed at Rs.45,85,364.96, however, they made payment of Rs.1099202.54 to the Ops  in December 2010.    As per clause No.11 (a) of the agreement, the construction of the flat was to be completed within 24 months from the date of agreement i.e. 10.01.2011, but, the same was not completed with the stipulated period.  The complainants have paid more than 95% of the total sale price i.e. Rs.54,83,548.26 against the sale price of Rs.45,85,364.96.  As per increased area from 1544 sq. ft. to 1858 sq. ft arbitrarily, the O.Ps revised the  sale price to Rs. 6065473.54 on 22.03.2017.  As per agreement, the O.Ps should pay the amount of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month of the super area of the flat for the period of delay. The Ops have offered the paper possession on 22.03.2017, but, the house was in complete.  It has further been alleged that O.ps. had already charged excess amount then the agreed in the schedule of payment mentioned in the agreement.  Hence under the constraint circumstances the complainants had no option but to file the present complaint with the prayer that the appropriate direction may be issued to the O.Ps. to pay Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month from 22.09.2012 to till the date of possession alongwith interest, Rs.5,00,000/- for compensation and the amount of Rs.55,000/-   as litigation expenses and withdraw the demand notice dated 22.03.2017.

2.                In reply, allotment of floor and execution of agreement etc. are admitted by Ops, but, they have denied their liability to pay any compensation.  The complainants have deposited a sum of Rs.54,75,136.54/-. As per clause 11 (a) the OP endeavoured to complete the construction of the said project within 24 months (2 years) unless there was delay due to a force majeure condition or due to reasons mentioned in 11 (b) and 11 (c).  It was denied that price of the floor was Rs.45,85,364.96/-. The price of the property as per SOP was Rs.58,11,922.20/- plus service tax for 1750 sq. ft. however due to increase in area in value was due to increase in area of the floor was per clause 9 and 10 of the floor buyer agreement.  O.Ps. have offered possession of the independent floor to them and requested them to remit the outstanding dues.  It was also denied that sale price was arbitrarily revised.  An amount of Rs.94,877.19/- was levied against the complainant on account for delay. the possession letter was sent to the complainants vide letter dated 22.03.2017. The occupation certificate has been applied on 08.11.2016 and same has been received on 12.01.2017.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.  Preliminary objections about the concealment of material facts, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, one of the complainant in his evidence has tendered the affidavit  that of Sh.Rajesh K.Goyal vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents  i.e. buyer agreement alongwith schedule of payments as well as final statement of account.

4.                On the other hand in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant the O.Ps. had also tendered the affidavit Ex.RA that of Mr. Shiv Kumar representative and also tendered documents Ex.R-1  to R-13 and closed its evidence.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Satyawan Ahlawat, the learned counsel for the complainants as well as Mr.Parveen Jain, the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  With their kind assistance the entire record including voluminous documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainants vehemently argued that the O.Ps. arbitrarily has increased the area of the floor for which the complainants were not liable to pay the same. He further argued that they intentionally increase the price of the floor from Rs.45,85,364.96 to Rs.6065473.54.   As per the agreement, O.Ps. are liable to pay Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month due to delay in possession and other compensation as prayed for.

7.                Learned counsel for the O.ps. vehemently argued that as per the agreement, the service charges have been levied upon the complainants at the initial stage.   They are legally increased the area of the floor.  The complainants are not liable to pay any compensation as prayed for.

8.                There is no dispute about booking of a floor on  23.09.2010. It is also a matter of record that buyer agreement was executed and as per the terms and conditions of the Buyers Agreement, the possession was to be delivered by 09.01.2013. Thereafter, the tentative price, which was informed to the present complainants was increased to Rs.60,65,473.54.  The contention raised on behalf of the complainants that the service charges cannot be levied upon the complainant s and even if the area is increased, no enhanced amount can be charged.  It has not been disputed on behalf of the O.Ps. as far as the service charges are concerned, the details were given to the complainants at the initial stage.  As per the terms and conditions of the buyer agreement if at any stage, it revealed that the area of the floor has been increased, in that eventuality, the complainants has to make the payment, but, at the rate of initial booking.  Hence, both these contentions raised on behalf of the complainants are not substantiated and are not legally tenable as the service charges whatever have been levied were informed to the complainants at the initial stage. The complainant is to make the payment of the enhanced area, but, as per the old charges.  As far as the other charges are concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a concession of one year if the builder would not get approvals and sanctions and it is none of the fault on behalf of the O.Ps. Once the amount has been increased legally for the purpose of getting the possession, the complainants are required to make the entire amount and thus only the legitimate claim for seeking possession can be raised.  Hence, considering all the facts and circumstances, the complaint is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

 

January    29th, 2019                                     Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                                                        Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl.Bench               

S.K.