Haryana

StateCommission

A/987/2014

Omaxe Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jagdish Rai - Opp.Party(s)

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     987 of 2014

Date of Institution:     29.10.2014  

Date of Decision :     29.09.2016  

1.      Omaxe Limited, Omaxe House, 16 Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 through its Chief Manager Sales and Marketing.

2.      The Managing Director, Omaxe Limited, Omaxe House, 16 Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

Through Shri Harsh Bhargav, authorised representative, Omaxe Limited, 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Jagdish Rai Garg s/o Sh. Ram Gopal, Resident of House No.1021/30, Kakroi Road, Sonipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                               

 

Argued by:          Shri Bhupender Singh, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri A.K. Antil, Advocate for respondent.          

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated September 4^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                Jagdish Rai Garg-complainant (respondent herein), booked a flat with Omaxe Limited-Opposite Parties/appellants (for short ‘the builder’), in their project namely “Omaxe Loga E Tower, Pant Nagar, Uttranchal” on 30^th October, 2006. He paid Rs.5,42,025/- to the builder. Thereafter, the complainant surrendered the flat. However, alternative Flat No.206, measuring 1165 square feet, was given to him in Omaxe Heights Allure Tower, 2^nd Floor at the rate of Rs.1250/- per square feet. Thus, the total cost of the flat was Rs.19,95,700/-. The complainant paid Rs.18,08,300/- to the builder.

3.                In November, 2012 the complainant was informed by the builder that the area of the flat was increased from 1165 square feet to 1194 square feet and the cost was increased to the extent of Rs.4,88,504/-. The grievance of the complainant was that for the increased area of 20 square feet, the builder should have charged Rs.36,250/- but the builder demanded the exorbitant amount of Rs.4,88,504/-.

4.                The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing written version. It was stated that the complainant did not abide by the terms and conditions of the booking agreement and did not pay the amount as per schedule. Since the complainant was not willing to take the flat in Uttranchal, so he was allotted flat No.206 at Sonipat after adjusting the amount which was paid by him for the flat in Uttranchal. It was denied that the complainant paid Rs.18,84,004/-, rather, he paid Rs.18,03,004/-. Flat No.206 was having area of 1194 square feet.  The complainant was liable to pay the cost of increased area, that is, Rs.4,88,504/- besides interest and other additional charges. External Development Charges (EDC) was demanded by the Town and Country Planning Department, so the complainant was liable to pay the same to the builder. It was stated that the complainant was liable to pay Rs.7,02,188/- to the builder as on 06.01.2013 alongwith delayed interest on that amount. Thus, denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint observing as under:-

                    “The perusal of the record itself shows that the respondents regarding the receipt of Rs.5,42,025/- has not uttered even a single word in the written statement or affidavit and they very cleverly has shown that the amount of Rs.5,42,025/- was received on 28.06.2011.  In fact this amount was transferred from the Uttranchal Project to the project at Sonepat.  So, in our view, the respondents are liable to pay the interest to the complainant on the amount of Rs.5,42,025/- w.e.f. 31.10.2006 to 28.06.2011.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.5,42,025/- w.e.f. 31.10.2006 to 28.06.2011.  Thus, we also declare the letter dated 06.03.2013 (Ex.C1) and statement of account (Ex.C2) dated 06.03.2013 to be wrong and illegal.

                             Since the area of the flat was increased from 1165 to 1194 sq. feet, the respondents are only liable to charge the amount of 29 sq. feet from the complainant and the same is also directed to be charged from the complainant without  interest and other charges.  The respondents are also directed to charge the amount for 29 sq. feet area on the rate, the area 1165 sq. feet was allotted to the complainant.

                             In our view, the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the respondents are further directed to pay Rs.25000/- to the complainant as compensation for rendering deficient services, for causing mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The respondents are further directed to deliver the physical possession of the flat to the complainant, if the same has not yet delivered to him by the respondents.

                             With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.” 

6.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

7.                The controversy between the parties is with respect to the demand of Rs.4,88,504/- on account of increased area of the flat, besides interest and other additional charges. As per statement of account, demand was made for Open Car Parking; Preferential Location Charges; External Development Charges and Infrastructural Development Charges. Agreement (Exhibit R-2) is on the file, a perusal of which shows that the price calculated is for a total cost of flat. The opposite parties have already included Rs.58,250/- towards Preferential Location Charges; Rs.2,59,850/- Additional Charges and Rs.2,21,350/- as External Development Charges & Infrastructural Development Charges. By adding these amounts, the total cost of the flat was worked out as Rs.19,95,700/-. In the final Statement of Account (Exhibit R-9), the opposite parties have again included these items. The parties are bound by the agreement. So, except for cost of increased area which the District Forum has allowed, the opposite parties cannot add any other amount. It is not the case of the opposite parties that there was any enhancement in the EDC/IDC. Therefore, whatever amount agreed, can only be charged.

8.                Second limb of argument was that the complainant is not entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.5,42,025/-, which he has deposited in the project of the opposite parties in Uttranchal. We do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties on this issue. Undisputedly, the amount was deposited by the complainant in the project of the opposite parties at Uttranchal. The opposite parties did not proceed with the project for about five years and retained the amount. there was no fault on the part of complainant, so certainly they are liable to pay interest to the complainant on the said amount. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

9.                In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

10.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 29.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

CL