Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/143

Dr. Birendra Kumar and Dr. Anupria Pankaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Messers Amit Realty Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.N. Day

30 May 2019

ORDER

Complainant Dr. Birendra Kumar Pankaj and Dr. Anupria Pankaj filed this case for an order to direct O.P. to hand over the unit no. 424 purchased from O.P. and to pay  Rs. 2,75,592/- ( Two Lac Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Two) as delay in delivery for 27 months with Rs. 91,476/- (Ninety One Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Six) as further delay of six months in total Rs. 3,67,018/- (Three Lac Sixty Seven Thousand and Eighteen). And pay for compensation for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lac) for mental agony and other relief.

2          The Case, in short, is that complainant purchased unit No. 424 as an office area of 1534 sq.ft. on payment it was agreed to give possession within July 2013 and it may be extended to six months failing which O.P. shall pay interest @ 8% p.a. on the deposited amount as compensation for delayed delivery.

            Complainant received a letter dt. 24-04-2016 as “ Notice for possession for fit out of unit 424 at Bokaro Mall” and mentioned to take delivery of possession of allotted unit within 15 days after making payment of Rs. 9,70,206.34/-, on different heads, out of those some of which were not payable.

            Complainant replied the letter through their lawyer accepting demand of Rs. 1,36,050/-(One Lac thirty Six Thousand and Fifty) for maintenance corpus charge Rs. 76,700/- (Seventy Six Thousand and Seven Hundred), maintenance charge of Rs. 38,350/- (Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Fifty) and legal fees of Rs. 21,000/-(Twenty One Thousand) only and denied to pay other demand beyond the scope of agreement and agreed to pay cost of electrical equipment. Complainant demand Rs. 4,27,735/- (Four Lac Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Five) for compensation of delayed delivery for 27 month @ 8% on deposited  amount of Rs. 22,86,900/- Complainants asked O.P. to pay Rs. 2,75,592/- after adjusting due amount of Rs. 1,36,050/-

            O.P. replied on 18-06-2016 on reply notice by which O.P. denied to pay compensation for delayed possession as vague and evasive.

However, O.P. did not replied the letter of the complainant dt. 18-07-2016. Hence, this case is filed for deficiency in service.

3.         The following documents are filed is support:-

            Anx-1- Copy of terms and condition.

            Anx-2 to 2/1- Copies of letter of O.P. and reply of the complainants.

            Anx-3- Copy of allotment letter dt. 10.05.12

4          O.P. M/s Amit Realty Pvt. Ltd. appeared through Director Amit Tekriwal and filed written statement.

            It is submitted that the case is not maintainable as having no cause of action and complaints are not consumers and dispute is also not consumer dispute.

            It is submitted that complainant suppressed the some of the materials for delay in construction due to SAIL approval of the drawing of O.P. and construction, which was stopped by letter dt. 11-02-2010 of SAIL, was again started on 23-03-2012. These facts were explained to the complainants at the time of booking on 02-02-2012.

            It is also submitted that on verbal assurance by the complainant, O.P. agreed to hand over at the end of year 2016 due to delay in construction and outbreak of fire in mall in 2015. But Complainant complicated to matter after genuine demand of O.P. by letter dt. 21-04-2016.

            It is typing error to hand over the unit in 2013 after booking in year 2012 which was unnoticed by O.P. and his staffs.

            Complainants did not take possession of the unit and the delay was caused due to complainant’s fault for which O.P. cannot be blamed.

5          The followings documents filed by O.P.

            Anx-A- Copy of letter dt. 11-02-2010 of SAIL to O.P.

            Anx-B- and B/1 Copy of letter dt. 06-01-2011 of SAIL by which

 approved design man cancelled and further approval.

            Anx-C- Copy of lease agreement between SAIL & O.P.

            Anx-D- and D/1- Copy of letter dt. 21-04-2016 to the complainant

                        Copy of demand per head.

            Anx-E- Copy of letter dt. 10-05-2016 for Air Conditioner

            Anx-F- Copy of reminder letter dt. 01-10-2016 for possession.

            Anx-G- Copy of letter dt. 19-10-2016 CAM Charges

            Anx-H- Copy of terms and condition.

            Anx-I- Copies of allotment letter dt. 17-01-2014 and payment schedule lay out etc.

FINDINGS

6          We perused the complaint, written statement and the documents filed by both the sides.

7          O.P. has raised the objection that since the complainant is not a consumer, so, this case is not maintainable at this forum and the dispute is not a consumer dispute.

            According to the complainant, he has purchased the unit no. 424 on payment. But the complainant has not filed any sale deed showing purchase of the unit. Anx-1 is the terms and condition under in which clause 2 (a) (b) shows the land over which the “Bokaro Mall” is erected, is a lease land which is a government land which was leased by Government of Bihar to SAIL in year 1962 and SAIL has sub- leased the area to O.P. in the year 2009 for the purpose of erection of ancillary works incidental to the construction of the iron and steel for a period of 33 years.

            Thus, It is clear that the unit claimed to be purchased by the complainant is not purchased premises. Rather, a license by the O.P. was to be given in the form of further intended sub- lease of the premises to the complainant. This is purely a contract between the complainant and the O.P. and dispute is breach of the terms and condition of the contract.

            As such, we hold that complainant is not a consumer and dispute is not a consumer dispute.

8          Accordingly, this case is not maintainable at this forum and hence, it is hereby dismissed.

            O/C is directed to deposit the record in the record room.