Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/391/2022

Munish Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mohammad Sartaj Khan

17 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/391/2022
Date of Institution	:	4/4/2022
Date of Decision	:	17/5/2024

 

1. Munish Garg, S/o Sh. Kulbhushan Kumar, resident of H. No. 403, Tower Primrose-B at Florence Park, New Chandigarh situated at Revenue Estate Of Village Dhodemajra in Sector 14 New Chandigarh, SAS Nagar, Punjab

 

2. Monika Rani, W/O Munish Garg, resident of Unit 403, Tower Primrose-B at Florence Park, New Chandigarh situated at Revenue Estate Of Village Dhodemajra in Sector 14 New Chandigarh, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

...Complainants

Versus

 

1. M/S Ambika Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Florence Park, New Chandigarh situated at SCO: 18-19, 1st Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh- 160009.

2. M/s Shri Vishnu Facilities Management LLP, Florence Park. through its Managing Director, 1218, 12th Floor, DLF, Tower B. Distt. Centre, Jasola, New Delhi 110025.

3. GMADA, Puda Bhawan, Jail Rd, SECTOR-62, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Chandigarh 160062.

Opposite Parties

CORAM :		PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
		SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER
ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Mohammad Sartaj Khan, Advocate for complainants alongwith. Sh. Munish Garg, Complainant No.1, in person
	:	Sh. Manpreet Singh Longia, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	Sh. Manjinder Kumar, Advocate for OP No.2
	:	None for OP No.3.
	:

Per surjeet kaur, Member

1.        Briefly stated the complainants booked a residential unit No.403 Primrose-B on 27.3.2017 with the Ops by paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- measuring 1690 sq. ft.  which was further extended to 1775 sq. ft. without consent of the complainant and for which the complainant had to pay additional amount of Rs.1,40,547/-.  Allotment letter dated 30.3.2017 was issued to the complainants  and  Buyers Agreement dated 28.7.2017 was also executed between the complainants and OP No.1. The total sale consideration of the unit was Rs.35,76,146/- including all taxes and Rs.31500/- as IBMS. The OPs issued no due certificate dated 25.5.2021  was issued by OP No.1.  As per Buyers Agreement the possession of the unit complete in all respect was required to be handed over within a period of 36 months from the date of signing of the agreement. The Ops handed over the possession of the unit in question on 21.5.2021 but without completion and occupation certificate and without proper amenities. The complainant several time requested the Ops to provide proper amenities and completion/occupation certificate but to no avail. The OPs without providing  proper amenities and obtaining completion certificate illegally charged maintenance charges from the complainants.  Despite several requests made by the complainants to the OPs to provide amenities as promised and obtain occupation certificate, the OPs kept the matter lingered on and did not redress the grievance of the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that

in terms of the clause 28 (a) of the builder buyer agreement, the OP No.1 was to deliver the possession of the flat within 36 months from the date of singing of agreement or within an extended period of 6 months i.e. the unit was to be handed over within a total period of 42 months from the date of execution of the agreement, which was executed on 28-07-2017 and as such the possession was to be delivered on 28.01.2021. However, due to the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the Hon'ble Chairman, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab, had issued a circular dated 28.08.2020 to the effect that for all the projects in State of Punjab, wherein the completion date was on or after 15.03.2020, the period of validity of such projects shall be automatically extended by 6 months from the original date. In view of the said circular, the possession was to be offered to the complainant till 28.07.2021. However, in the present case, after obtaining the occupation certificate and partial completion certificate,  the possession was offered to the complainant on 05.04.2021. The answering OP obtained the partial completion certificate in respect of the tower, wherein the flat of the complainants is situated, on 25.02.2021 and the offer of possession was made to the complainants on 5.4.2021  i.e. well  before the due date i.e. 28.7.2021, therefore, there is no delay in offering possession to the complainants. It is denied that there is any lack of amenities in the project rather the answering  OP has already provided intercom, convex mirror in basement, parking, benches and common area etc. and even built the children parks and sand pit for children to play. Thus there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.

3. OP No.2 in its reply stated that all the  facilities are being provided by OP No.2 and the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegations that no amenities have been provided. It is averred that OP No.1 has already obtained the completion certificate and occupation certificate and it is the complainant who is not coming forward to execute the maintenance agreement which otherwise is liable to be executed between the parties. However, all the facilities are being provided to the complainants and there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. OP No.3 in its reply stated that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP as the complainants have no cause of action against the answering OP. However, it is averred that O.P. No. 1 has obtained Partial Completion Certificates for residential Towers 4,5,6,7 and 8 in its Group Housing Project situated at Village- Dhode Majra, New Chandigarh, S.A.S. Nagar from the Competent Authority-cum-Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA, S.A.S Nagar vide Memo No. 536 dated 25.02.2021, Memo No. 79 dated 11.01.2022 and Memo No. 1606 dated 29.06.2022 subject to the conditions mentioned therein.  Denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  
5. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant due to delayed possession of the flat in question and has also alleged that the OPs illegally charged excess amount in lieu of increase in area of the flat in question and prayed for refund of the same.
8. After going through the record available on file it is evident that the flat in question was allotted to the complainant on 30.3.2017  whereas the Buyer’s Agreement  was executed on 28.7.2017 as is evident from Annexure C-3. Apparently there is delay of 4 months in executing the aforesaid Buyer’s Agreement by the OPs.
9.  Now to consider the correct date of possession, as per agreement  dated 28.7.2017 the promised date of delivery of possession is 28.7.2020 with extended period of 6 months subject to force majeure conditions which comes to 28.1.2021.  As per OPs they offered possession to the complainant vide Annexure C-5  letter dated 5.4.2021  but the email Annexure C-6 at page 88 dated 5.5.2021 and Annexure C-7 at page 90 clearly shows that the complainant showed his willingness to get the possession but due to absence of various basic amenities he could get the possession in the month of June only meaning thereby again there is delay of 5 months in handing over possession to the complainant by the OPs due to no fault of the complainant. Hence,  the complainant is certainly entitled for delayed interest for 9 months (4+5 months) as discussed above.
10. So far as the question of refund of the amount paid by the complainant in lieu of increased area is concerned, we are of the opinion that the same is not maintainable as the possession of the flat in question has already been taken  by the complainant that too without any protest.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to pay interest @9% per annum on the total deposited amount  for the total period of delay of 9 months.
2. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.      This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-
17/5/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member