Delhi

StateCommission

CC/582/2016

RAJINDER P. KAPANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAPSKO BUILDERS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SAPNA CHAUHAN

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments: 15.07.2016

Date of Decision: 18.07.2016

Complaint No. 582/2016 & 583/2016

 

In the matter of:

Rajinder P. Kapani,

S/o Sh. N.R. Kapani,

R/o 27087, Road Court, Chantilly,

Virginia-20152 (USA).                                                               ........Complainant

 

Versus

MAPSKO Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

52, North Avenue Road,

Punjabi Bagh West,

New Delhi-110026.                                                          …...... Opp. Party

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. By this order, I shall be deciding two complaints bearing No.C-582/16 & C-583/16.  Apparently, the complainant is the same person in both the complaints. In CC No.582/16, he booked flat in Group Housing MAPSKO  CASA BELLA, Sector-82, Gurgaon and paid Rs.4,37,000/- as initial payment. Clause 4 of the terms and conditions mentioned in provisional application, recite that in the event of flat being given after six months from the date of advance registration, a simple interest @10% per annum was payable by OP. On 08.04.2009 OP entered into Flat Buyers’ Agreement pertaining to Apartment No.G-04, Ground Floor, Block No.B-1having super area of 1960 sq.ft @Rs.2254/- per sq.ft.  Clause 27(c) of the agreement provided that in case there was delay beyond six months in handing over the possession, the Op was to pay damages @Rs.5/- per sq.ft.per month. The complainant to pay Rs.56,73,840/- including BSP, EDC and IDC, covered parking, IFMS, Power Back up charges, Club membership, Corner Flat, Park facing and Ground Floor as per table mentioned in annexure-I.

 

2. Complainant is residing at US.  The flat Buyers’ Agreement provided that LPC @Rs.100/- per sq.ft. for park facing,  Rs.2,06,000/- was charged on the said account.  Actually, unit was not park facing. The ledger indicates the said charge was on account of LPC instead of park facing.  The OP assured to settle the same. The complainant was shocked to received letter dated 10.02.2016 offering possession and demanding certain amount mentioned therein.  Hence, this complaint for taking of demand of Rs.35,691/- as interest on delayed payment, Rs.1,37,200/- towards late penalty charges from letter of offering possession. Complainant has also paid Rs.56,73,840/- @ Rs.2836/- per month, interest @21% from date of judgement till handing over of possession, penalty @.5% per month for delay in handing over of possession. He has sought refund of Rs.2,06,000/- paid for park facing PLC with interest @21% from Feb.2013 till payment, Rs.29,133/- @10% on 4,37,000/- for eight months delay in offering confirmed registration. Compensation of Rs.20 lacs against actual financial loss on account of non user of money, Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses, Rs.2,00,000/-  compensation for  mental trauma, agony and harassment.

 

3. In CC No.583/16, flat no. is G-03. The figures of deposit and demand are little bit different but rest of averments are same.

 

4. First of all, the complainant is residing at USA. He cannot be expected to return to India and live here. Secondly, he could not and cannot live in two flats.  On the most, he can live in one flat.   Thus, two flats were booked for commercial purpose only i.e. for selling at a time when price appreciate. In taking this view, I am fortified by decision of National Commission in TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Jain I (2016) CPJ 377.

 

5. Yet another hurdle in the case of the complainant is that he has claimed penalty for delayed possession but possession has not yet been taken by the complainant.  The penalty can be claimed only after possession is taken.  Otherwise the same would be recurring and complainant cannot claim the same through repeated complaints.  Still further the complainant has not prayed for possession. In such circumstances, partial claim for taking off demand for interest, for penalty in delayed possession etc. are premature.

 

6. During arguments on admission, the counsel for complainant submitted that two flats were booked, one for complainant and one for gifting to his wife. No such averments have been made in the complaint. Moreover it was stated that complainant is a senior citizen aged about 73 years.  It is astonishing that in such advance age the complainant could think of living separately from his wife.

 

7. The complaint is dismissed in limini.

 

8. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as per rule. 
9. One copy of this order be placed in file of CC No.583/16.

 

10. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

                         ​