STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. | : | 441 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 24.05.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 26.05.2017 |
Ms. Anuradha Mankotia D/o Col. Kuldeep Singh R/o APT.11, MDC Sector-5, Panchkula.
…Complainant
V e r s u s
M/s DLF, SCO 190-191. Sector-8-C, Chandigarh.
...Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to date.
Argued by: Mr.Devinder Singh Soundh, Advocate for the complainant.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
The Complainant purchased one residential independent floor- built up Unit in the project of OP namely Hyde Park Estate IF, New Chandigarh (Mullanpur), Punjab, measuring 1884 sq. ft., by moving an application on 27.5.2015. She deposited an amount of Rs.6.00 Lakhs towards booking of the said Unit, a copy of receipt is Annexure C-1. She was allotted an independent floor by OP on 3.6.2015, copy of allotment letter is Annexure C-2. Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was entered into between the parties on 4.2.2016, a copy of which is Annexure C-3. As per terms and conditions of the said agreement, the OP committed to handover possession within 10 months from the date of agreement.
2. We have perused copy of the agreement dated 4.2.2016 Annexure C-3. As per clause 11(a) it appears that possession was to be offered within 30 months and not 10 months, as alleged, subject to force majeure circumstances. In case of delay, there was provision of paying penal compensation. It is further alleged in the complaint that there was delay in executing the Buyer’s Agreement. The total price of the Unit was fixed at Rs.70,65,000/- excluding EDC etc. By January,2016, she had already paid an amount of Rs.79,13,696/- towards price of the Unit. It is, thereafter, that she received letter dated 28.9.2016 inviting her for registration of conveyance deed and offer of possession qua the Unit allotted to her. It is her grievance that huge amount was claimed through said letter which was not due to her. She sent letters, emails etc. to the OP but failed to yield any result, whereupon, she filed Consumer Complaint bearing No.170/2017 before this Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.4.2017, by observing as under ;
“As per the Agreement, time limit to give possession is still available. Dispute is only with regard to some charges. The complainant may take up the matter by writing a detailed letter to the Opposite Party. If such a letter is sent within seven days from today, the Opposite Party will give answer to the queries raised therein within next 15 days. At this stage, the complaint is pre-mature, therefore, it stands disposed of accordingly.”
3. It is her case that in compliance to the above said order, she sent letter/representation dated 6.3.2017 to the OP (C-12) to the OP. To show that the said notice was sent through post, affidavit of Counsel has been placed on record stating that the notice was so sent on 6.3.2017, however, brief of that Counsel containing postal receipt etc. has been stated to be misplaced. To show that the letter was delivered to the OP, one track slip has been placed on record. However, said track slip does not make it clear whether it pertains to the delivery of an envelope containing notice sent by the complainant to the OP. It is nowhere stated in the track slip that the registered letter in question was sent by the complainant or his Counsel.
4. Not only as above, in the earlier complaint also, it was only stated that huge amount had wrongly been claimed by the OP, without giving details. When demanding payment of balance amount vide letter dated 28.9.2016, the OP had referred to relevant clauses/provisions of the Agreements. Detail analysis has not been given in the complaint as to why with reference to those clauses/provisions, payment of amount is being disputed. Even after receipt of the said letter, an amount of Rs.6,53,779/- was paid by the complainant to the OP. Under such circumstances it was advisable to get possession of the Unit under protest and then raise dispute for any excess amount received/claimed by the OP.
5. Under the above circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dismiss this complaint, at this stage. However, as earlier directed in the order dated 27.4.2017 in CC No.170/2017, we may again permit the complainant to send a detailed notice by making reference to the clauses/provisions of the Buyer’s Agreement and disputing the demand raised by the OP. The Complainant may take possession in the meantime. After giving reasonable time to the OP to redress her grievance, if on getting reply, grievance of the complainant is not redressed, she may file a fresh complaint, as admissible under law.
6. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
7. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
26.05.2017
