Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/264/2020

Niraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Anshul Bhosale Realty - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/264/2020
Date of Institution	:	13.8.2020
Date of Decision	:	15.5.2023

 

Niraj son of late Sh. Garesh Chander resident of House No.826/1, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh 160036.

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

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. Sh. Deepak Vilasrao Jagtap, partner of M/s Anshul Bhosale realty through its partners, 501, Karan Tej Bonita CTS No.1187/16, plot No.549/15, off Ghole Road, Pune 411005.
3. Sh. Vikram Bajirao Bhosale, partner of M/s Anshul Bhosale Realty through its partners, 501, Karan Tej Bonita,  CTS No.1187/16, plot No.549/15, off Ghole Road, Pune 411005.

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Complainant in person. None for OPs.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

1. Briefly stated the complainant purchased a flat from one Sharadha Varma for a total consideration of Rs.23,50,000/- by availing house building loan. The said Sharadha Varma purchased the said flat from the OPs by entering into agreement dated 10.6.2013. The OPs 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 5.9.2018 and after execution of sale deed all the  terms and conditions of the agreement dated 10.6.2013 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 OPs were supposed to provide all the amenities in the flat as per agreement but unfortunately they failed to provide even basic amenities. As per para 8 of the agreement the OPs 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 OPs. The OPs 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 time requested the OPs to remove the defect in the flat and provide basic amenities but the OPs 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, 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 in their reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that  the complainant has no locus standi to challenge the agreement to sale dated 10.6.2013, which was executed by the OPs in favour of Mrs. Shraddha Verma the original allottee of the said flat. Mrs. Shraddha Verma was fully satisfied with the services of the OPs and possession was delivered to her on 13.8.2018 at her request.  It is admitted that NOC  was issued to the ICICI Bank for mortgaging the flat in question but the OPs has no knowledge about the negotiation of the complainant and Mrs. Shraddha Verma. It is vehemently denied that after execution of sale deed between the complainant and Mrs. Shraddha Verma all the terms and conditions of agreement dated 10.6.2013 got applicable to the complainant.  Since the complainant was not a party to the Agreement dated 10.6.2013, therefore, he cannot take help of any of the clause of the said agreement. It is further averred that on 8.6.2017 the Co-operative Hsg. Society by the name and style of Anshul Kanvas a Wing Co.OP. HSG. Society Ltd.  is also registered in the said project and has been legally handed over  28.11.2020 and presently the society committee is looking after the maintenance of the said project. Thus the contention that the answering OPs are demanding maintenance charges is totally false and misleading.  Denying any  deficiency on their part, all other allegations made in the complaint have been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that there are various irregularities  in the project of OPs. Even the basic amenities have not been provided by them rather they have demanded maintenance charges at the rate of 3500/- per month which according to the complainant are illegal.
7. The stand taken by the OPs is that the complainant is not a consumer qua the answering OPs as he has not paid any amount to the complainant for buying the unit in question rather he has purchased  the same from the earlier allottee.
8. After going through the documents on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the unit in question on 5.9.2018 from the earlier buyer one Ms. Shraddha Verma  and not from the OPs.  So far as the question of demand of payment of Rs.3500/- per month  from the complainant as maintenance charges by the OPs is concerned, there is not even a single document adduced on record by the complainant which proves that demand of such kind of maintenance charges were raised by the OPs rather it is admission on the part of the complainant that he himself is not ready to pay  the same  being on higher side than the agreed rate as per agreement  of the buyer with the OPs.
9. Perusal of para 16 of the complaint reveals that the complainant mentioned name of four persons who as per him are demanding maintenance charges on behalf of OPs  but the complainant even did not make a single person out of those four person a party to the instant complaint so as to enable this  Commission to lay its hand on the facts and circumstances as to how and on the basis of what agreement they demanded the same.  Had the complainant made parties to the four persons whose name he has mentioned in para 16 of the complaint alongwith the relevant documents the dispute would have dealt with accordingly. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable against the OPs being non-joinder of the necessary parties.   
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.     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/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member