Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/135/2023

NIRAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ANSHUL BHOSALE REALITY THROUGH ITS PARTNERS - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

04 Jan 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

[ADDL. BENCH]

 

 

Appeal No.	:	135 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	16.06.2023
Date of Decision	:	04.01.2024

 

Niraj son of Late Sh. Garesh Chander, Resident of House No. 826/1, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh – 160036.

….Appellant

Versus

[1]      M/s Anshul Bhosale Realty through its Partner, 501, Karan Tej Bonita, CTS No. 1187/16, Plot No. 549/15, Off Ghole Road, Pune-411005.

[2]      Deepak Vilasrao Jagtap, Partner of M/s Anshul Bhosale Realty, 501, Karan Tej Bonita, CTS No. 1187/16, Plot No. 549/15, Off Ghole Road, Pune-411005.

[3]      Vikram Bajirao Bhosale, Partner of M/s Anshul Bhosale Realty, 501, Karan Tej Bonita, CTS No. 1187/16, Plot No. 549/15, Off Ghole Road, Pune-411005.

….Respondents

 

BEFORE:

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:    Sh. Niraj, Appellant in person.

Sh. Tarun Vaid, Advocate for Respondents.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY,  PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1]                This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.05.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/264/2023.

 

2]             For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.

3]                Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainant/Appellant that he purchased a flat from one Mrs. Sharadha Varma for a total consideration of ₹23.50 lakhs by availing house building loan. The said Mrs. Sharadha Varma purchased the flat in question from the Opposite Parties/ Respondents by entering into agreement dated 10.06.2013. The Opposite Parties have also issued no objection in favour of the complainant for mortgaging the said flat in favour of ICICI bank. Sale deed of the said flat executed on 05.09.2018 and after execution of sale deed all the  terms & conditions of the agreement dated 10.06.2013 were applicable to the complainant as the earlier buyer Mrs. Sharadha has transferred her rights mentioned in the agreement in favour of the complainant. The Opposite Parties were supposed to provide all the amenities in the flat as per agreement, but they failed to provide even basic amenities. As per para 8 of the agreement, the Opposite Parties were to hand over the possession within 36 months  complete in all respect, but they provided the possession after lapse of more than 5 years that too without basic amenities. There were various shortcomings in the flat and matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties who instead of providing basic amenities started demanding maintenance charges inspite of the fact that the earlier purchaser has already deposited the maintenance charges upto October, 2019. The complainant thereafter many a times requested the Opposite Parties to remove the defect in the flat and provide basic amenities, but the Opposite Parties to the contrary always demanded maintenance charges and even changed the layout plan of the project without the consent of the complainant after receiving all the documents. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

4]                In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, Opposite Parties pleaded the complainant has no locus standi to challenge the agreement to sale dated 10.06.2013, which was executed by the Opposite Parties in favour of Mrs. Shraddha Verma the original allottee of the flat in question. Mrs. Shraddha Verma was fully satisfied with the services of the Opposite Parties and possession was delivered to her on 13.08.2018 at her request.  It was admitted that NOC was issued to the ICICI Bank for mortgaging the flat in question, but the Opposite Parties has no knowledge about the negotiation of the complainant and Mrs.Shraddha Verma. It was denied that after execution of sale deed between the Complainant and Mrs.Shraddha Verma all the terms & conditions of agreement dated 10.06.2013 got applicable to the complainant.  Since the complainant was not a party to the agreement dated 10.06.2013, therefore, he cannot take help of any of the clause of the said agreement. It was asserted that on 08.06.2017 the Co-operative Hsg. Society by the name & style of Anshul Kanvas a Wing Co. OP. HSG. Society Ltd.  was registered in the said Project and was legally handed over 28.11.2020 and presently, the Society Committee is looking after the maintenance of the said Project. The cause of action set up by the complainant was denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

 

5]                After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, the Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the complaint, in the manner, as stated above.

 

6]                Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ Complainant.

 

7]                We have heard Appellant in person and Learned Counsel for the Respondents and have also gone through the evidence and record of the case, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8]                The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9]                After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10]              It is the case of the Appellant/complainant that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding.

 

11]              The factum of the Appellant having purchased the flat in question from one Mrs. Shradha Verma (the original allottee of the said flat) on 05.09.2018 has not been disputed. It has been argued by the Appellant that he had received SMS message for the maintenance charges and few of the messages were placed on record of the Ld. Lower Commission as Annexure C-14 and C-15 whereby maintenance charges had been demanded on higher side; whereas, as per agreement executed between the parties, the Appellant was liable to pay ₹2/- per sq. ft. which comes to ₹1248/- per month, but the Ld. Lower Commission erroneously dismissed the Complaint observing that not even a single document has been adduced by Appellant to prove that demand of such kind of maintenance charges were raised by the Respondents. The Appellant has also argued that the Ld. Lower Commission has wrongly dismissed the Complaint on the ground of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties instead of the same on merits.

 

12]              Learned Counsel for the Respondents resisted the claim of the Appellant on the ground that on being handed over the project to the registered Cooperative Housing Society, the claim of the Appellant that the Respondents through their representatives were demanding maintenance charges does not merit consideration.  We find sufficient force in this limb of argument raised on behalf of the Respondents, in as much as once the registered Cooperative Housing Society took over the reins from the Respondents, it is the said Cooperative Housing Society who can raise a demand qua the maintenance charges from the inhabitants of the said Project and the Respondents by no stretch of imagination could demand such charges. However, during the course of present proceedings, to clinch the controversy involved, the Respondents were directed to place on record affidavit from their responsible person/ authorized signatory clearly stating therein the date on which the maintenance activities had been handed over to the said Cooperative Housing Society. In compliance thereto, Respondent No.2 Deepak Vilasrao Jagtap – Partner of Anshul Bhosle Realty LLP (previously known as M/s Anshul Bhosale Reality) has filed his duly sworn affidavit dated 26.09.2023, inter alia, submitted that the project was handed over to adhoc committee of Co-operative Hsg. Society namely Anshul Kanvas – a Wing of Co-Opposite Party. Hsg. Society Ltd. (Regd. No. PNA/ PAN (5)/ HSG (Ld. Trial Court)/17864/2017-18, dated 08.06.2017 and presently, the Society Committee is looking after the maintenance of the said project. 

 

13]              It thus emerged from foregoings, the Society Committee is looking after charging and collection of maintenance of their respective Society and its Members and the Respondents have nothing to do with the same. Ever since formation and handing over the affairs of the Project to the Society Committee, the Respondents could not demand maintenance charges as alleged by the Complainant. Moreover, it was within the ambit of the said Society Committee to decide the rate of maintenance charges to be charged from the flat holders/society body members and the Appellant being member of the said Society was bound to pay the same. Moreover, it was the Appellant himself who did not pay the maintenance charges as per the demand raised and even did not chose to array such persons or the Society Committee to answer his claim in the consumer Complaint. The Ld. Lower Commission has categorically recorded a cogent finding to this effect in Para No. 8 and 9 of the order impugned before us which to our mind does not suffer from any legal infirmity. No case is, therefore, made for any interference in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

14]              No other point was urged, by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

 

15]              It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

16]              In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

17]              The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 

18]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced

04.01.2024.

                                                                                                  Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”