Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/495/2021

Mohit Nagpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Toni

27 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/495/2021
Date of Institution	:	28.7.2021
Date of Decision	:	27.03.2023

 

Mohit Nagpal aged 31 years son of Sh. Bhupinder Nagpal r/o House No.3233, Ground floor, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 159, Chitvan Estate, Sector GAMMA, Greater Noida City, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) through its Managing Director/Director.

2.   Managing Director Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 159, Chitvan Estate, Sector GAMMA, Greater Noida City, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar (UP)

  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Bhupinder Nagpal father/representative of complainant. Sh. Piyush Chandel, Counsel for OPs alongwith Sh.K.M. Chaudhary, Manger Admn./General O/O OPs.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

1. Briefly stated the OPs launched its scheme for allotment of residential flats in Sector OMICRON-1A in Greater Noida.  The complainant applied for the allotment of flat under the said scheme by fulfilling required formalities. The complainant was issued allotment-cum-allocation letter dated 16.8.2010 Vide  Annexure C-3 and the complainant fulfilled all requirement thereof and made all the required payments as demanded from time to time by the OPs. It is alleged that the OPs promised the complainant to handover the possession of the flat within a period of two years from the date of issue of allotment letter but the period of two years had already expired on 16.8.2012  but there was no sign of development at the site and the complainant kept visiting the office of OPs  and site for the said purpose but the OPs kept promising that possession would be offered soon. In 2016 the complainant was in urgent need of funds and he wanted to raise loan against the aforesaid property but the same could not be availed as no possession of the property was given by the OPs, thus under compelling circumstances the complainant had to write to the OPs to give possession though the construction of the flat was far from completion and had to sign on the possession letter and give his satisfaction and the possession was handed over to him.  After passage of time when the complainant again visited the flat in October 2017 he was shocked to find that the same was still not completed or inhabitable.  The OPs had not received the occupation certificate in respect of these flats which showed that the flats were not complete even after passage of 7-8 years. The complainant requested the OPs to complete the construction work several times but the OPs failed to do the same.  Ultimately the complainant issued legal notice dated 14.8.2018 but to no avail. Hence, this complaint alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in their reply stated

That in march 2016 they had issued offer of possession to the complainant and per offer of possession letter complainant had to execute lease deed within a period of 60 days. But in the present case complainant never approached the authority for issuance of possession certificate after getting the offer of possession letter for execution of lease deed. It is averred that the lease deed of the flat of the complainant bearing no.203-FF, Pocket- Block No.16 of Sector-Omicorn-1A had already been registered before the registrar on 18.04.2016. Now it is the duty of the complainant to deposit the copy of the of registered sale deed before  the authority for issuance of possession certificate but despite knowing the fact that the lease deed had already been executed by the complainant, the complainant, intentionally never approached the opposite parties for issuance of possession certificate. Further the complainant admitted himself that he signed the draft possession letter by giving satisfaction. It is further averred that Possession Letter has been issued by the Opposite Parties on 08.03.2016 by stating complainant for registration of sale deed of flat in question, thus, the complainant approaching the Hon'ble commission after the period of 5 years from of offer of Possession Letter. It is denied that the flats in question was not in a good condition and it was inhabitable. It is averred that a fully furnished flat was provided to the complainant with all the facilities given to the allottees. Further the complainant till now has not taken possession certificate from Opposite Parties and without taking the Possession Certificate and without entering into the flat how the complainant can raise question with respect to condition of the flats. Thus, the complainant is trying to manipulate the Hon'ble commission by making concocted story.  In fact the complainant has executed lease deed on 18.04.2016 and as per office order allottees have to take Possession Certificate within a period of 30 days from the date of lease deed registration and if the complainant fails to take Possession Certificate from the authority in prescribed period of 30 days, then penalty of Rs.800/- as maintenance charges shall be imposed against allottees. It is averred that for execution of lease deed performa possession certificate is required and the same has been issued to the complainant for execution of lease deed. The performa possession certificate signed by the opposite Party/authority only after the execution of lease deed. In the Performa Possession Certificate it has been specifically mentioned that allottee has to take the possession certificate within a period of 30 days after the execution of lease deed and if the  possession certificate is not received by the complainant within a period of 30 days then in that case Rs.800/- shall be charged for maintenance against the complainant. Since the  complainant has not taken the Possession Certificate and as per calculation Rs.51,200/-is pending against complainant as maintenance charges till date. It is averred that as per clause ‘H’ of the brochure it has been specifically mentioned that flat will be accepted by the allottee "as is where is basis” on  lease for a period of 90 years unconditionally. The opposite party had already issued offer of possession letter and lease deed had also executed in favor of complainant and now the complainant is bound to accept and take possession letter from the authority and complainant cannot run from legal liability. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complainant has been  made.

3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the representative of the complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The main grievance of the complainant is that inspite of paying all the money payable towards the flat in question to the OPs, he has not been handed over the flat in habitable condition or complete in all respects. He has further alleged that the flat lacked good infrastructure and the absence of basic amenities creates problems for residence.
7. We have perused the para 8, 9 and 18 of the reply of the OPs wherein it is mentioned that flat is fully furnished and is in a habitable condition. It is also further stated that complainant himself is not taking the possession certificate from the authority as he is bound to pay maintenance charges of Rs.51200/- as per rules which is apparent from Annexure OP-1/4. On one side the OPs have stated that the complainant is not taking possession of the said flat whereas in para 3 of preliminary submissions the OPs have stated that offer of possession letter has been issued by the OPs on 8.3.2016 (Annexure OP-1/3) and vide Annexure OP-1/4 the possession letter has been duly signed by the complainant himself.
8. On perusal of documents on record, it is observed that the OPs have not adduced any documentary evidence that the flat in question was complete for physical occupation in all respects. It is apparent from photographs placed on record by the complainant vide Annexure C-4 that the flats in question are not inhabitable conditions. However, the OPs have not adduced any photographs showing the latest condition of the flat or that of surroundings area vide which they could have contradicted the plea of the complainant that the said flats are not fit for occupation and inhabitation. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency on the part of the OPs by not handing over physical occupation of the flat in question after completing it in all respects Hence, we are of the opinion that the OPs are liable to handover the physical possession of the flat in question to the complainant complete in all respects so that he can physically occupy the same and the complainant is also liable to pay the maintenance charges which  is pending to be paid to the OPs.
9. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint partly succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. To handover the physical possession of the flat in question to the complainant complete in all respects after receipt of pending maintenance charges of Rs.51200/- from the complainant.  
2. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(i) &(iii) above.
11.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member