RESERVED

           STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                       UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                        COMPLAINT NO. 369 OF 2019

Ms. Rajyasri Roy Chowdhury

C/o Sri Tanmoy Chakravorty

R/o P-241, Lake Road, Ground Floor

Kolkata-700029

                                                                                           ...Complainant

                                                     Vs.

Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority

Plot No.01, Knowledge Park-04

Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar

Uttar Pradesh-201308

Through its Chief Executive Officer/

Principal Officer

                                                                                       ...Opposite Party

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

For the Complainant         :   Sri Piyush Mani Tripathi, Advocate.                                             

For the Opposite Party      :   Sri Rajesh Chadha, Advocate.              

Dated : 30-11-2022

                                            JUDGMENT

            PER MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

Heard Sri Piyush Mani Tripathi, learned Counsel for the complainant.

On behalf of opposite party, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Sri Rajesh Chadha, learned Counsel appeared.

The instant complaint has been filed in the year 2019 under Section-17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with the following relief/prayer:-

”WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may graciously be pleased to:-

i. DIRECT the opposite party to provide the Physical Possession of the fully finished Unit No.203 FF Pocket Block No.42 in First floor, admeasuring 120.78 square meter situated at ‘Residential Flats’, Sectors ETA-II, Omicron-I & Omicron-1A, Greater Noida, U.P. The opposite party may be directed to provide the possession of this unit with all the

basic civic amenities and the facilities which are agreed between the parties. It is also prayed that the opposite party may be directed to place on record the Map of the project as well as the occupancy certificate/completion certificate.(Price of the Unit is Rs.27,73,000/-)

ii. DIRECT the opposite party to refund illegal and arbitrary amount of Rs.3,03,000/- alongwith interest collected from the complainant. (total relief amount is Rs.3,03,000/-)

iii. DIRECT the opposite party to pay interest on the amount of Rs.30,43,962/- with effect from the respective dates of deposits till the date of the possession of the Fully Finished Unit which this Hon’ble Commission may feel it just proper and judicious under the circumstances of the matter.

iv. DIRECT the opposite party not to claim any illegal and arbitrary demand against the allotment of the complainant.

v. DIRECT the opposite party to pay the loss of rent to the complainant on monthly basis with effect from the promised date of the possession delivery date till the date of the possession of the unit. The complainant prays that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to award the loss of rent per month as this Hon’ble Commission may deem it fit and proper under the circumstances of this case.

vi. DIRECT the opposite party to pay appropriate compensation and damages in view of the serious deficiency in service as well as Unfair Trade Practice.

vii. DIRECT the opposite party to bear the difference in the expenditure which the complainant shall incur while getting the registration of the sale deed belatedly in view of the delay committed by the opposite party.

viii. DIRECT the opposite party to pay Punitive Damages which this Hon’ble Commision may deem it fit proper and judicious under the circumstances of this case.

ix. DIRECT the opposite parties to pay appropriate interest on the damages and compensation as claimed by the complainant.

x. DIRECT the opposite party to pay appropriate punitive/exemplary damages on account of mental agony, harassment and trauma under went by

the complainant.

xi. Allow sthe complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupee One Lakh Only) towards cost of the case.

xii. Any other order which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.

The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party has floated a residential scheme named as Residentail Flat Scheme Sector ETA-II, Omicron-I and Omicron-1A Greater Noida in which a fully furnished Unit No. 203 FF Pocket Block No.42 situated at First floor of Residential Flat admeasuring 120.78 square meter has been offered to the complainant. The complainant deposited the entire amount as so fixed by the opposite party for the aforesaid residential flat which comes to Rs.29,93,934/- as against of the total price of the aforesaid flat fixed by the opposite party to the tune of Rs.27,73,000/-. According to the settlement/agreement 24 months time was given/provided in the allotment letter for delivery of the physical possession of the flat in question.

According to the Counsel for the complainant the period of 24 months expired in the year 2012, however, neither the unit has been proposed to be handed over by the opposite party; nor any letter of possession has been issued. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party after visiting the place of construction/plot where she find and was shocked to see that the construction work is at halt and the partial construction work which is being carried out by the opposite party is not in accordance with the agreed specification, therefore, it is found that the project lacks necessary civic amenities. A letter has been issued by the opposite party dated 01-07-2013 by which it has been communicated to the complainant that the allotted unit is ready and the additional charges of Rs.1,68,000/- has to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party.

Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that the unit was admittedly offered by the opposite party for a cost of Rs.27,73,000/- against which more than Rs.2,20,000/- in excess amount has been paid by the complainant even then the said letter dated 01-07-2013 has been issued.

Another letter dated 12-09-2013 has been issued by the opposite party

:4:

by means of which sum of Rs.25,277.53 each in four instalments totalling sum of Rs.1,01,110/- has been claimed/asked by the opposite party as compensation to the Bhattaparsul victims.

In para 9 of the complaint it is categorically mentioned by the complainant that till December, 2013 she has deposited total fixed demand which according to the complainant is in fact much more than the demand which is issued/fixed by the opposite party as is provided under the statement of account dated 12-12-2013 wherein the opposite party stated that no outstanding amount is due against the complainant. A copy of the said statement of account has been enclosed as Annexure-4 to the complaint.

The allegation of the complainant is that instead of completing the construction of the unit the opposite party has illegally raised the arbitrary demand towards the allotted unit. Another letter dated 30-09-2015 has been issued by which a further demand of Rs.3,81,000/- towards escalation charges has been raised by the opposite party of which the complainant has lodged protest and the RTI application has also been moved by the complainant. Knowing the fact that the complainant has moved a RTI application the opposite party reduced the demand from Rs.3,81,000/- to Rs.3,05,000/- in order to save the complainant’s allotment pressure, hence the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.3,05,000/- with the opposite party. After the aforesaid deposit the complainant visited the office of the opposite party, however, no heed was paid by the opposite party or any of the authority of the opposite party, hence a legal notice dated 23-02-2016 has been issued by the complainant who is a senior citizen and a lady but no reply has been issued/given by the opposite party/authority to the legal notice. Thereafter again and again the complainant approached the opposite party and ultimately having no way out  the instant complaint has been filed with the above mentioned prayers.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

Learned Counsel for the complainant Sri Piyush Mani Tripathi has placed reliance of the contents mentioned in the complaint petition, as are narrated hereinabove and has submitted that in fact the opposite party being the Government Organization is not supposed to behave in such a manner as

:5:

the authority has behaved with the complainant who is a senior citizen and a lady. He has also placed reliance of the affidavit filed by one Sri Khan Basi, Manager Property in the office of the authority who has clearly mentioned in his affidavit that in pursuance of the allocation letter dated 16-08-2010 the registration amount of Rs.2,77,000/- was deposited and apart from the said amount the complainant has also deposited sum of Rs.24,46,080/- within the stipulated time.

According to the contents mentioned in the affidavit of Sri Khan Basi since the complainant has opted for ‘cash down payment plan’, therefore, according to the brochure/allotment scheme she has been provided two percent rebate. In para 7 of the said affidavit it is claimed that a letter dated 30-09-2015 has been issued calling upon the complainant for deposit of increased cost and for deposit of amount of ‘Atirikt Pratikar’ of 64.7% for which another letter is issued on 14-03-2016 as claimed by the opposite party.

The Counsel for the complainant submits that the amount of Rs.3,05,000/- was deposited by the complainant even then the letter of possession has not been issued to the complainant.

In para 9 of the said affidavit it is contended that the authority allegedly issued another letter dated 02-07-2016 called upon the complainant for completion of the formalities for the purpose of execution of sale deed and further that another letter was issued on 22-12-2018 as the complainant was mum on the reply to the previous letters and therefore by the letter dated 22-12-2018 the complainant was offered for O.T.S. scheme and one time settlement scheme reminder letter was claimed to be issued dated 21-01-2020 by which sum of Rs.10,98,139/- was also asked by the authority under the heads of lease rent, water sewer charges, documentation charges, lease deed penalty and additional cost of flat which according to the appellant authority was outstanding against the complainant.

The aforesaid letters though are enclosed alongwith the aforesaid affidavit, however, the same are disputed by the learned Counsel for the complainant and on asking about the method of dispatch of the said letters by the authority to the complainant no proper or specific reply has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite party development

:6:

authority.

Sri Rajesh Chadha, learned Counsel for the opposite party has submitted that in fact there was no fault on the part of the development authority either in delivering the possession of the allotted unit to the complainant or providing due intimation to the complainant.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after due verification of the material placed on record and after consideration of the arguments of both the parties in my opinion the opposite party Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority has not only committed illegality by not fulfilling the stipulated condition in the brochure and condition letter issued by them and further by illegality creating the demand again and again in various heads which too was fulfilled by the complainant being the senior citizen and a lady even then the possession of the allotted unit has not been handed over to the complainant till filing of the complaint which has been filed by the complainant in December, 2019 i.e. after about a gap of more than nine and half years from the date of booking/deposit of the entire amont against the allotted unit.

It is further to see the highhandedness of the authority that after filing the instant complaint the authority has allegedly issued a letter dated 21-01-2020 demanding sum of Rs.10,98,138/- under the heads of lease rent, water sewer charges, documentation charges, lease deed penalty and additional cost of flat.  In my opinion, the said letter dated 21-01-2020 is nothing but the method adopted by the opposite party development authority to shade their illegality and arbitrary act which is not permissible in the eyes of law.

In view of the above it is clearly established that the opposite party development authority has not only committed illegality, arbitrariness but has harassed the complainant mentally, physically and monitrarily, therefore, the following order is being passed against the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to make the registry of the flat within one month from the date of this judgment. The allotted flat must be furnished to the satisfaction of the complainant by the opposite party within two weeks.

The opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum

:7:

of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment and financial losses. The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of the case to the complainant.

The opposite party development authority is directed to pay the interest to the complainant on the payment made by the complainant with effect from the date of payment till the payment of interest is made by the opposite party at the rate of 8% per annum on account of admitted delay of the allotted unit by the opposite party.

The entire amount as directed hereinabove will be paid by the opposite party to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

The complainant will visit the unit within a week from the date of the judgment in presence of the officer of the opposite party/Authority and will point out all necessary requirements both by way of showing the same to the officer concerned and in writing. In case if the opposite party will fail to carry out the pointed out deficiencies the opposite party will pay futher cost of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.

                     ( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR )                             

                                   PRESIDENT                                                 

          Pnt.