DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.679 of 2018

                                                  Date of institution:  02.07.2018                                                  Date of decision   :  20.07.2018

Hemant Garg son of Gian Chand Garg, resident of # 76, Sector 49-A, Young Dwellers Complex, Chandigarh 160047.

…….Complainant

Versus

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), Mohali through its Estate Officer, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Mohali (Punjab).

                                                              ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

        Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Ramanjit Singh, counsel for the complainant.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               As per case of complainant, he after going through advertisement in various news papers, applied for allotment of Type-3 residential flat in Purab Premium Apartments Scheme by submitting application. Letter of intent dated 22.05.2012 was issued and thereafter complainant deposited 95% of the total sale consideration amount in time. Rs.71,25,850/- in all was deposited by complainant and thereafter allotment letter and offer of possession letter dated 30.06.2016 regarding Apartment No.1404  was issued by OP in favour of complainant. Physical possession of that flat got by complainant on 05.09.2016. Possession of the flat was to be handed over to complainant as per Clause 3 (ii) of letter of intent within 36 months from the date of issue of that letter of intent. So possession was to be delivered upto 22.05.2015, but said possession actually delivered on 05.09.2016 after issue of offer of possession letter dated 30.06.2016. So delay of one year and 39 days took place. This delay alleged to be exclusively attributable to OP. By pleading deficiency in service on part of OP, direction sought through this complaint to OP for paying interest of amount of Rs.11,83,000/- calculated @ 15% per annum for the delayed period of one year and 39 days. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- more claimed.

2.             Arguments for admission purposes heard.

3.             Complainant has relied on letter of intent dated 22.05.2012 for claiming that after issue of letter of allotment and possession, he was handed over possession of the allotted flat on 05.09.2016. So it is obvious that complainant himself is relying on the letter of intent for allotment of residential apartment in question. Though as per Clause 3 (ii) of this letter of intent, possession was to be handed over within 36 months from the date of issue of letter of intent, but at the same time in this Clause  3 (ii) itself, it is mentioned that in case for any reason OP, remained unable to deliver possession of the apartment within stipulated period, then allottee shall have the right to withdraw from the scheme by moving an application to the Estate Officer, in which case, OP will refund the entire amount deposited alongwith annual compounded interest @ 8%. In this clause itself, it is mentioned that apart from this there shall be no other liability of the authority (OP).  So when the contents of this clause 3 (ii) of the letter of intent relied upon by the complainant, taken into consideration as a whole, then same leaves no manner of doubt that though possession was to be delivered within 36 months of issue of this letter of intent dated 22.05.2012, but despite that rights available to complainant in the event of fault of delivery of possession within 36 months, was to withdraw from the scheme for having refund of the deposited amount with interest only. Except this right, no other right was given to complainant as per this Clause 3 (ii) of letter of intent itself. Complainant has not availed right of seeking refund with interest, but he got physical possession of the allotted apartment after delay and as such in view of specific stipulation in Clause 3(ii) referred above, it has to be held that complainant has left with no other right after getting physical possession of the allotted apartment to him. Rights and obligation of the parties governed by letter of intent itself is the case of complainant projected through Para No.6 of the complaint and as such reliance on Clause 3 (ii) of letter of intent to govern case of the parties. As the right to complainant to seek compensation for delay in delivery of possession debarred through Clause 3 (ii) of letter of intent and as such certainly complainant not entitled to seek interest for late delivery of possession of the allotted apartment. So virtually this complaint has been filed for seeking relief in violation of terms and conditions of contract arrived at between the parties. As and when relief is claimed in violation of terms and conditions of contractual obligations, then certainly consumer complaint is not maintainable because in case the complaint allowed for grant of relief in violation of terms and conditions of the agreement, the same will give undue benefit to the claimant/complainant over the adversary. Law prohibits unjust enrichment and as such this complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed at admission stage itself.

4.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage itself. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

July 20, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member