Haryana

StateCommission

A/973/2016

M/S OMAXE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARTAR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GUPTA

22 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                          First Appeal No  :      973 of 2016

Date of Institution:     17.10.2016

Date of Decision :      22.08.2017

 

1.      M/s Omaxe Limited, Registered Office 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi through Managing Director/Manager.

 

2.      M/s Omaxe Limited, Shop No.19-B, First Floor, Omaxe Celebration Mall, Sohna Road, Gurgaon through its Managing Director/Manager.

 

          Through Sh. Dheeraj Sharma, Authorized Representative M/s Omaxe Limited, 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

Versus

 

1.      Kartar Singh Dahiya son of Sh. Mir Singh resident of House No.610, Nilauthi, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Haryana).

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s Subham Reality Property Dealers, Omaxe Complex, Bahadurgarh.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.                          

 

Present:               Shri Nihal Singh, Advocate for appellants

                             Shri Gobind Dhanda, Advocate for respondent No.1-complainant.

                             (Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated March 31^st, 2017)

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          By filing the present appeal, Omaxe Limited-opposite parties No.1 & 2 (for short ‘Builder’) has challenged the order dated August 16^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Kartar Singh Dahiya-complainant was allowed.  The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “5.     In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, it is observed that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of respondents No.1 and 2 who illegally recovered the amount of Rs.2,38,801/- minus Rs.8632/- (dues was to be paid) = Rs.2,30,169/- say Rs.2,30,000/- from the complainant.  Therefore, it is directed that the respondents No.1 and 2 shall make the refund/payment of a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- (as excessively recovered) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 28.04.2015 till realization of final payment to the complainant.  The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- from the respondents No.1 & 2 company on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  However, it is made clear that as per prayer of complainant, the respondents No.1 and 2 shall also remove all the defects from the flat in question i.e. water leakage of roof of flat etc.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

2.      Shyam Sunder Goyal was allotted Flat No.606, 6^th Floor, Sector 6, Omaxe North Avenue, Bahadurgarh.  The complainant purchased the aforesaid flat from Shyam Sunder Goyal.  The flat was transferred in the name of complainant vide Request Form (Exhibit P-4).  The conveyance/sale deed was executed between the builder and the complainant vide Exhibit R2.  The sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed was Rs.25,10,318/- excluding stamp duty of Rs.2,04,000/-.  The Endorsement Fee of Rs.65,450/- was paid by the complainant to the builder vide receipt (Exhibit P-3).  The builder charged Rs.26,65,019/- from the complainant. 

3.      By filing the complaint, the complainant sought refund of the excess amount paid by him to the builder.

4.      It is not in dispute that the builder charged Rs.26,62,019/-, that is, sale consideration of the flat from the complainant.  Initially area of the flat was 1165 square feet and the amount of sale consideration was Rs.24,31,850/-.  Lateron the area was increased from 1165 square feet to 1214 square feet and as such, the sale consideration was also  increased from Rs.24,31,850/- to Rs.25,10,318/- but the builder charged Rs.26,62,019/-, that is, Rs.1,51,701/- in excess to the sale consideration. The District Forum calculated the sale consideration considering the area of the flat to be 1165 square feet and the amount in excess was calculated wrongly.  Since the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deed (Exhibit R-2) was Rs.25,10,318/- and the builder had charged Rs.26,62,019/-, that is, the amount of Rs.1,51,701/- (Rs.26,62,019/- minus Rs.25,10,318/-) was charged in excess of the sale consideration, which the complainant was entitled to recover.

5.      In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed.  The builder is directed to refund Rs.1,51,701/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses to the complainant.  

 

Announced: 22.08.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President