Delhi

StateCommission

CC/493/2014

SH. SUBROTO KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S BPTP LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jul 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 16.07.2019

Date of Decision :  19.07.2019

 

Complaint No.493/2014

 

In the matter of:-

 

Sh. Subroto Kumar,

S/o Late Sudhindra Nath Kumar,

R/o A-908, Amrapali Green,

1/3, Vaibhav Khand,

Indirapuram, Ghaziabad,

UP-201010.                                                                               …......... Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s. BPTP Limited,

BPTP Crest,

Plot No.15, Udyog Vihar,

          Phase-IV, Gurgaon

          Haryana-122015.

 

          Also At:

          M/s. BPTP Limited,

          M-11, Middle Circle,

          Connaught Place,

          New Delhi-110001.

 

2. Kabul Chawla,
3.  

M/s. BPTP Crest,

Plot No.15, Udyog Vihar,

Phase-IV, Gurgaon,

•  

 

Also At:

M/s. BPTP Limited,

          M-11, Middle Circle,

          Connaught Place,

          New Delhi-110001.

 

 

 

3. M/s. Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

M-11, Middle Circle,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

 

4. M/s. Business Park Maintenance Services Ltd.

M-11, Middle Circle,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.   ….....Opp. Parties

                                                                

CORAM

 

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                        Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                     Yes/No

 

 Sh. O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

This order will dispose of application dated 15.09.2018 moved by OP for dismissal of the complaint being not maintainable as complainant is not  a consumer .  The plea of the OP is that the complaint is not maintainable in view of order passed by National Commission in RP-3338/07 titled as Harpal Arya Vs. Housing Board Haryana.

 

2.       In nutshell the plea of the OP is that Conveyance Deed for unit in question was executed in favour of the complainant on 15.03.2013 and physical possession of the unit was taken by the complainant on 14.01.2014. The transaction stood concluded. About a year after execution of Conveyance Deed, the complaint has been filed on 10.10.2014.

3.       The other plea of the OP is that complainant purchased the flat for the purpose of investment and to earn profit by leasing out the flat No.B-1201.  He had actually letout the same to Mr. Devendra Sanjay Katre on 31.08.2018.Copy of lease agreement is attached with WS as annexure R-1.

4.       Complainant has not filed any reply to the above application.

5.       I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.   Counsel for OP drew my attention towards copy of registered Conveyance Deed dated 15.03.2013 which is annexure-A to WS and placed at page-16 to 31 of the bunch of WS.  She also drew my attention to copy of indemnity-cum undertaking dated 22.01.2013 which is placed at page-36 to 39 of the bunch of WS.  In para-2, it is mentioned that complainant has taken physical vacant possession of the flat as per Flat Buyer Agreement to his complete satisfaction and after due inspection and verification of all aspects of the flat in respect of  its condition, documents, title, status, size, super area, measurement, dimension, location, quality of construction and materials used, specification, services, provided etc.  He confirmed that he has no claim or demand of any nature whatsoever now or any time in future against the company (OP) in respect of or in relation to the flat including but not limited to aspects inspected and verified by him.

6.       In view of the above indemnity-cum-undertaking the complainant is no more consumer.  He may seek his remedy sought for in the present complaint regarding refund of Rs.2,19,086/- allegedly taken from him towards extra amount, penalty for delayed possession @Rs.5/- per sq. ft.  as agreed, rent paid by him for the accommodation in which he was residing during the delayed period, to pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation, to refund administrative, IFMS and maintenance charges for the period before handing over physical possession, in the Civil Court.

7.       It is strange to note that price of the flat was Rs.26,10,430/- and complainant has sought refund of Rs.23,53,311/-.  In other words, it means that he wants the flat to be almost free.

8.       The application is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

9.       Copy of the order be sent to all the parties free of cost.

10.     File be consigned to Record Room.

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)