Case No.44 /2022   

IN THE MATTER OF

Smt Nazma Khatoon age about 45 Years W/o Sri Mohd. GulZar R/o 17/573 mullapara Bhujpura Gali no.2 Tehsil Koil,  Aligarh 

                                           V/s

1. Faijul Hasan S/o Ali Jaan R/o 4/12 B near Bargad House hall Diggi, Aligarh  
2. Shahjad Hasan S/o Ali Jaan R/o 505 Sarai Allo, Khurja, District Bulanshahar
3. Dr. Azra Javi Ahmad W/o Sri Aftab Ahmad Iraki R/o Sultan Manzil Zohra Bag, Aligarh
4. Aligarh Vikas Pradhikran, Aligarh by VC. 

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for following reliefs:-

1. Ops be directed to complete the shortcomings left in construction of the flat and the Op no.4 be directed to demolish the unauthorized  construction.
2.  Ops be directed to repay the amount Rs.1380000 and Rs.121500 with interest at the 24% per annum.
3.  Ops be directed to pay Rs 1000000 as compensation for harassment.
4.  Ops be directed to pay cost of litigation.

2. Complainant was stated by the Ops that they have formed a partnership firm for construction of the flats. Ops had offered the flat no D1 at first floor having 1425 square feet covered area and stated the sanctioned map for multistoried flats. Ops had executed sale deed of the flat on 3.9.2020 in favor of the complainant and they had promised to hand over possession of the flat very soon and to pay the rent at the rate of RS.15000 per month. Ops did not carry out the work satisfactorily and the complainant took possession of the flat on 10.6.2021. Complainant borrowed the amount Rs.2150000 from the bank and paid to the ops and the amount Rs.121500 was taken by the ops pretending the amount of GST. When the complainant reached the flat, it was found that the sale deed of 89 square meter area instead of 1425 square feet area was executed and the map of multistoried flats was not got passed by the ADA and the map was sanctioned only under single residential project. Ops did not carry out work in the flat as per standard of the ADA and no arrangement was made for earthquake, natural calamities and fire. Plantation was also not done. Ops communicated deficiency in service along with the offences of fraud and breach of trust. Complainant has further stated that the Ops have received the extra amount Rs.1380000 through different receipts which was not repaid.                                      
3. Op no.1,2 and 3 have stated in WS that the Op no.3 was the owner in possession  of the land area 496.42 square meter situated at Dodpur Mafi, Aligarh who had entered into builder agreement with the Op no.1 and 2 whereby the Op no.1 and 2 are owner of a certain part and op no.3 was made entitled to a certain amount received from  sale. Complainant and her husband visited the flat D1 at first floor and examined the kitchen, bathroom, windows, titles and agreed to purchase the flat for Rs.2430000. Ops have constructed the flat at first floor having the map sanctioned by the ADA and the purchaser is not concerned with the construction of flats at second floor which has been constructed as per rule of the ADA. On 3.9.2020 the sale deed was executed and registered on 4.9.2020 and the complainant was given actual possession of the flat. Op no.4 has not filed WS.                   

4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Ops has also filed affidavit and papers in support of their pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the complainant and op’s counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the flat no. D1 at first floor which was constructed under the single residential project sanctioned by the ADA. Complainant has admitted the execution of sale deed dated 3.9.2020 by the ops firm in favour of complainant in respect of the flat no. D1 at first floor. Complainant has filed copy of sale deed which reveals that that the flat no. D1 at first floor of the area 89 square meter was sold to the complainant for Rs.2430000. It is mentioned at page no.7 of the sale deed that the complainant had purchased the flat having fully satisfied with the papers of ownership of the flat and with the quality and finishing of the flat. Complainant is bound by the terms mentioned in the sale deed. There is no agreement or other document to rebut the contents of the sale deed and  mere allegations raised by the complainant cannot be made reliable against the contents of sale deed on the basis of principle that the oral statement cannot prevail over the  documents and thus it is proved on the basis of terms of the sale deed that the flat was purchased by the complainant having fully satisfied and thereafter there could be no occasion to resile from the admission made in the sale deed. There is no substance in the compliant and is liable to be dismissed.        
8. The question formulated above is decided in against the complainant.                    
9. We hereby dismiss the complaint.
10. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
11. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.