BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

Punet Sukhija S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar Sukhija, resident of Flat No.17, GH-76, Sector-20, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                              ….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Plot No.1, Knowledge Park IV, Greater Noida(U.P.) 201301 through its Chief Executive Officer.
2. General Manager, M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Plot No.1, Knowledge Park IV, Greater Noida(U.P.) 201301

                                                                ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35  OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

Dr. Suman Singh, Member

For the Parties:   Sh.Y.P.Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.         

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Today the complaint is fixed for consideration on its admissibility.

2.             The brief facts, as alleged, in the present complaint, are, that a scheme of Multi-story Flats/Four-Story Flats, for allotment to public at large under Scheme Code:BHS-17/LOF-04) was floated by the OPs and as per the brochure, the said scheme was opened to public on 10.07.2023 and date of on-line submission of forms by public, was fixed as 17.07.2023 and date of closure of scheme as 31.08.2023; after going through the contents of the scheme, the complainant decided to apply for a multistory flat under General Category and an online application was submitted on 23.08.2023 in terms of advertisement, for allotment of residential unit; on line application of complainant bearing no.BHS-17/LOF-04-2920 dated 23.08.2023 for scheme ID–BHS17/LOF-04 was accepted by the Ops and receipt of Rs.5,05,000/- paid via internet was issued  to complainant by OPs bearing No.GNIDA-5553; the OPs issued a notice for holding the draw of lots for allotment of flats under the scheme, for 09.11.2023 and on the said date, the draw for allotment of Flats was held  by OPs, wherein the complainant was declared successful and Flat No.2002/H in OMICRON-01, Block H, measuring 83.36 sq. meter  was allotted to him. The complainant visited the OPs office in person on 20.11.2023 to enquire about the location of said Flat No.2002 on 20^th floor in OMICRON-01, Block H, as allotted to him vide draw of lots held on 09.11.2023, but none of OPs officials co-operated with him. The complainant gave a written request in this regard to a lady official, named Ms. Princy, on 20.11.2023, who was working in the office of OPs. The copy of this request letter was also sent via email as well as under Registered post to OPs. It is stated that the complainant then sent another letter under registered cover on 29.11.2023 to OPs but the complainant letters and an email sent to OP’s office have remained un-responded till date. Further, the complainant again visited the site OMICRON-01 at Noida and was surprised to see that the allotted Flat No.2002 at 20^th Floor in Tower H, does not exit at site. It is averred that the complainant again visited the site at OMICRON-01 Noida(U.P.) and the photographs of the Block ‘H’ were taken by him from outside including of Flat No.1902 located on last 19^th Floor. It is stated that the complainant had pointed out to officials of OPs during his various visits to their office including  on 05.12.2023, that as per enquiries made by him, only 19 Floors are constructed in Block ‘H’ and on rooftop of this 19^th floor, Water tanks, solar panels etc. are installed thereby making it last floor. It is stated that no response was received from the Ops qua his request seeking the refund of the earnest money with interest and thus, having no option, a legal notice dated 26.06.2024 was served upon the Ops through his counsel but the same also failed to evoke any response from the OPs. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, hence the present complaint.

3.             During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit of the complainant appended with complaint, and contended that a flat no.2002/H in Tower H in the residential scheme, namely, OMICRON-01, floated by the Ops, was allotted to the complainant in the draw of lots held on 09.11.2023 but upon the site inspection made by him, it was found that no such flat, as allotted him, existed at 20^th floor in Block H of the said residential scheme. It was argued that clarification qua the location of the said flat was sought by the complainant from the Ops vide letters as well as through email but no response was received from the OPs qua said letter dated 20.11.2023 and thus, request was made to OPs to refund the amount as deposited by him vide email sent on 29.11.2023 followed by the legal notice dated 26.06.2024 but to no avail. The learned counsel contended that the building plan of the residential complex in question was sanctioned vide letter no.3706/5136 dated 10.06.2027, which is mentioned at Mark ‘A’ on the photocopy of the  appended layout plant/drawing according to which, only 19 numbers of floors, were sanctioned.

                Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel has invited our attention towards the photocopy of the project details as reflected  on the U.P. RERA site, wherein only 19 numbers of floor has been shown in Tower H of the project in question and thus, it is prayed that the complaint may be admitted by issuing the notice to the OPs.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file, minutely and carefully.

5.             The grievance of the complainant is that a flat no.2002/H in OMICRON -01, Block H measuring 83.36 sy. Meters was allotted to him in the draw of lots held on 09.11.2023 in response to his application dated 23.08.2023, whereas no such floor i.e. 20^th floor having flat no.2002/H was found existing at site during his personal visit at the site on 20.11.2023.

6.             The complainant, in order to prove his contentions that there existed only 19 floor in Tower H instead of 20, has placed on record the letter no.3706/5136 dated 10.06.2027 along with the photocopy of the layout plan/drawing. Further, the complainant has relied upon the project details as taken by him from the U.P. RERA site.

                The letter no.3706/5136 dated 10.06.2017, which shows that the building plan of the project in question was sanctioned is of no help to the complainant’s case because it does not in any way shows that the building plan qua Tower H was sanctioned only for 19 floors. The photocopy of the layout plan/drawing appended with the said letter is also of no help because the same is neither legible nor the same is attested/certified copy. Similarly, the project details as taken out by the complainant from the U.P. RERA site is of no help as the same is neither neither attested copy nor certified copy by any competent authority. Further, the said project details allegedly reflected on the U.P. RERA site shows the architect name and structural engineer name but the photocopy do not bear the attestation/Certification by the said architect and structural engineer.

7.             Pertinently, the complainant has not placed on record the building plan as sanctioned on record, from which, the total numbers of floors in Tower H of the project in question could be ascertained. Further, there is no such documentary evidence on record, which shows that the building erected/constructed at the site do not conform to the sanctioned building plan. We have no authentic documentary evidence on record, which shows that the building plan was ever modified and amended by deleting and omitting the 20^th floor in Tower H. In the absence of any authentic and credible documentary evidence on record, no merits, at this stage, are found in the contentions of the complainant; accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed in limnie. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court/competent authority etc., if he is so advised, after obtaining all the relevant documentary evidence.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs, and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 07.10.2024

         Dr. Suman Singh                Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                    Member                       Member               President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                        (Satpal)

                                            President