DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.C.CASE NO. 147/ 2015
Sri Subrat Das, aged about 53 years,
S/o Late Dr. Rama Chandra Das, resident of Bhima Bhoi Nagar,
Budharaja, PO/PS- Budharaj, Sambalpur- 768004, At present
Residing in flat No.001, Ground Floor in Kedarnath Mansion,
Talabania, Samantarapur, PO- Bhubaneswar-2, PS- Lingaraj,
Dist – Khurda
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
Mr. Yogesh Patel, aged about 33 years,
S/o Sri Chandulal Patel, resident of Mangalabag,
Cuttack, Managing Director of M/s Kashyap Real Con. Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its registered office at Plot No.2563, Ratha Road,
PO- Harachandi Sahi, Old Town, PS- Lingaraj,
Bhubaneswar – 751002, Dist – Khurda
…. Opp. Party
For the complainant : Mr. P.C.Rath (Advocate)
For the OP : Exparte
DATE OF FILING : 08/05/2015
DATE OF ORDER : 30/06/2023
ORDER
S.TRIPATHY, MEMBER
1. This Consumer Complaint is filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 alleging unfair trade practice against the OP.
2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant booked one 3-BHK flat at “Kedarnath Mansion” having super built up area 938 sqft, measuring an area – 1219 sqft by paying initial booking amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide cheque and Rs.1,00,000/- by cash to the OP. After receiving the booking amount both the parties entered into an agreement. As per that agreement, the total cost of the flat was Rs.30,66,051/-. On 13/09/2023 complainant paid an amount of Rs.9,00,000/-, Rs.8,00,000/- & Rs.9,00,000/- vide draft No.180118, 180119 & 180120 dated 13/09/2013 respectively to the OP towards installment payments. On 20/09/2013, the OP executed the sale deed bearing No.11081313714 in favour of the complainant with an assurance that he would complete all the pending works within one month. However, the OP failed to complete the work in all respects and did not take any action on the complaint of the complainant despite several intimation. Moreover, the OP had taken an excess amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on 28/06/2013 which he had promised to refund after availing the loan amount. But till date the OP did not refund the money nor did he complete the pending work at the apartment, wherein the complainant resides. This caused huge financial loss and mental agony to the complainant for which he sought redressal from the Commission. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed his written version but did not participate in the hearing. Accordingly, he was set exparte and exparte hearing was taken up.
4 It is averred by the OP in his written version that, the complainant booked one 3-BHK flat measuring 1219 sqft of super built up area for a total sum of Rs.37,66,051/- at “Kedarnath Mansion” constructed by M/s Kashyap Realcon Pvt. Ltd” (OP). At the time of booking, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and then a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and assured to pay the balance amount of Rs.28,66,051/- after availing the housing loan from the bank. To obtain housing loan, the complainant executed an agreement with the OP on 25/07/2013 in which he mentioned the total cost of the flat as Rs.30,66,051 to avoid extra stamp and registration charges . OP also allowed this as because the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards advance consideration amount on different dates. After the approval of the housing loan, the complainant paid (Rs.9,00,000/- + Rs.8,00,000/- + Rs.9,00,000/- ) i.e. Rs.26,00,000/- vide three different bank draft dated 13/09/2013 to the OP. In total, the OP received an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- from the complainant out of Rs.37,66,051/-. The rest amount of Rs.2,66,051/- remained due upon the complainant which the complainant assured to pay after he receives the last installment of Rs.2,66,051/- from the Bank. On good faith, the OP executed registered sale deed vide No: 11081313714 dated 19/09/2013 and handed it over to the complainant. After execution of the sale deed, the complainant requested to the OP to deliver him the temporary possession of the flat so that he could carry out the interior work under his supervision. As the nephew of the complainant was a good friend of the OP, the OP handed over the temporary possession to the complainant in a good faith. It is to the utter shock of the OP that, after taking the possession of the flat, the complainant replaced entire locks fixed by the OP and did not allow him to visit to the flat to observe any internal defects nor the OP had any scope to rectify those defects.
Subsequently, the complainant came up with all these allegations of incomplete work, less floor area, etc which was just to evade the balance payment of Rs.2,66,051/- towards the cost of the flat and an extra cost of Rs.10,000/- which OP had spent during brick work insides the flat before handing over the possession.
Further, the OP contended that, in the meantime all the pending works have already been done at the said apartment and till date the OP is maintaining the apartment by collecting the monthly maintenance charges from other inhabitants of the apartment. But, the complainant has not paid a single money towards the monthly maintenance charges which costs around Rs.28,800/-. It is further mentioned by the OP that, on 04/02/2015, the measurement of the floor area was done by an architect in the presence of the complainant and found that the flat in question was of 1283 sqft which was more than the agreed area of 1219 sqft. The excess area of 64 sqft costs around Rs.1,79,200/- which is also not paid by the complainant.
So, all the allegations made against the OP are false and fabricated to avoid the above mentioned balance payments which is due upon the complainant. It is therefore, prayed before this Commission to dismiss the complaint and to direct the complainant to pay all the dues with interest along with litigation cost.
5. Perused the materials available on case record. It is an admitted fact by both the parties that, the complainant has purchased one 3-BHK flat from the OP by paying Rs.35,00,000/- in total on different dates. But the dispute is on the point that, the cost of the flat as per the OP is Rs.37,66,051/- whereas in the sale deed, the cost is mentioned as 30,66,051/-. The complainant demands the refund of his excess payment of Rs.7,00,000/- from the OP.
6. On careful verification of the documents filed by the complainant, it is noticed that, the cost of the flat is mentioned as Rs.30,66,051/- in the sale deed, whereas the OP has contended in his written version that, the actual cost of the flat is Rs.37,66,051/-. But in a good faith he accepted the request of the complainant to change that amount in the sale deed so that the complainant could avoid the extra stamp and registration charges. It is further noticed that, the complainant has made a total payment of Rs.35,00,000/- to the OP on different dates towards the cost of the flat. Now the question arises that, if the cost of the flat is Rs,30,66,051/-. then what compelled the complainant to make an extra payment of Rs.4,33,949/- to the OP. So, the submission of the complainant does not in spire confidence in us. It appears that, both the parties have played fraud on the registration. More so, the complainant has not come to this Commission in clean hands. Under these facts & circumstances, this Commission is of the view that, the complaint bears no merit. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is hereby dismissed exparte against the OP being devoid of merit.
The order is pronounced on this day the 30th June, 2023 under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.
(S.TRIPATHY)
MEMBER(W)
Dictated & corrected by me
Member ( W)
I agree
President
(K.C.RATH)
Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno
