Haryana

Karnal

CC/674/2022

Sh. Jai Pal Punia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Intex Developers Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

J.P. Chaudhary

08 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.674 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.29.11.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:08.07.2024

 

Shri Jai Pal Punia son of Shri Puran Singh, resident of Flat no.H-002, Aerens Palm Residency-II, Sector-35, Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. M/s Intex Developers Pvt. Ltd. having its corporate/marketing office at D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 through its CMD.
2. M/s Sunniva Promotors Pvt. Ltd., G-7, Ist floor, Green Park Main, New Delhi-110016 through its Director namely Anil Gupta.

 

3. Gold Star Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., G-7, 1^st floor, Green Park Main, New Delhi-110016 through its Director namely Anil Gupta.

 

4. Aarens Palm Residence Welfare Association, below tower-C, Aerens Palm Residency, Sector-35, Karnal through its President.

 

                                                              …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

Argued by: Shri J.P. Chaudhary, counsel for the complainant.

                   Opposite parties exparte, vide order Dt.18.04.2023.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased one apartment no.H-002, in Aerens Palm Residency-II, Sector-35, Karnal measuring 1534 sq. ft. approximately for a total sale consideration of Rs.39,68,400/-, which he has paid in complete, full and final consideration. There are certain terms and conditions ought to be complied by the OPs, all regarding providing different services, amenities and facilities, which may be called as public utility facilities. Earlier the OPs failed to provide so many services, amenities and facilities as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed in between the complainant and the OPs. Due to non-compliance and non-providing of the facilities as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell, the complainant was forced to file a petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Karnal, Haryana. The petition was contested by the OPs but lateron a settlement was done qua to those amenities and the complainant became ready to withdraw the said petition, which was ultimately withdrawn on 20.07.2022. The subject matter of the present complaint was not a part of that petition, because regarding the subject matter was being prolonged by the OPs on the assurance that the parking places would be provided to all the consumers. At the time of withdrawal of that petition, the OPs have assured that the parking place would be soon provided to the complainant in near future. The complainant has approached the OPs so many times but OPs did not answer his quarries properly and did not further tell that at what occasion, the parking place will be provided to the complainant, which shows that the intention of the OPs seems to be not clear for providing parking place to the complainant, for which the OPs have charged Rs.75000/-. The term and condition of providing parking place to the complainant was clearly mentioned in the agreement to sell in article-2. Complainant has been suffering a lot due to non-providing of parking place, the complainant has been still awaiting that the OPs must provide parking place to the complainant in near future. If any difficulty or hinderance was there in providing of parking place, then it was the duty of the OPs to inform the complainant well in time in this regard. Without parking it is not possible to reside in such house where a car or any other vehicle cannot be parked, particularly in the circumstances, when the flat was allotted, with a provision to provide the facility of parking was published that too against consideration. The OPs in all are liable to provide the place of parking to the complainant to fulfill the terms and conditions of the OPs and the agreement executed in between the complainant and the OPs and in case of non-providing, it can be easily understood that the value of the flat would be decreased to the lowest level. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 29.08.2022 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to provide the parking place as per agreement of sale, to pay Rs.51,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and to pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OPs did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 18.04.2023 of the Commission.

3.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C7, copy of Agreement Ex.C8, copy of petition before PLA Ex.C9, copy of application for Membership of Resident Association Ex.C10, copy of Formation of Association of Owners of Palm Residency II Ex.C11, copy of Membership Form of Flat/Apartment Owner’s Association Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 14.11.2023 by suffering separate statement.

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

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has purchased a flat in Aerens Palm Residency-II, Sector-35, Karnal for a total sale consideration of Rs.39,68,400/- alongwith Rs.75000/- as parking charges and said amount has been paid by the complainant to the OPs. As per Flat Buyer’s Agreement, OPs were bound to provide the parking space to the complainant but till date OPs have not provided the parking facility. Thus, the complainant has been suffering a lot due to non-providing of parking space and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

6.             The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant. To prove his version, complainant has relied upon the documents copy of legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C7, copy of Agreement Ex.C8, copy of petition before PLA Ex.C9, copy of application for Membership of Resident Association Ex.C10, copy of Formation of Association of Owners of Palm Residency II Ex.C11, copy of Membership Form of Flat/Apartment Owner’s Association Ex.C12. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has placed on file, copy of application alongwith terms and conditions of allotment of flat in question, which has been taken on file as Mark-A. On perusal of the said documents, it has been proved on file that  OPs have received Rs.3,00,000/- including Rs.75000/- as parking charges and Rs.50,000/- as club membership, vide receipt no.011 dated 21.05.2011.  To rebut the said evidence produce by the complainant, OPs did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, complainant is entitled for parking spacealongwith interest, compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses.

7.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to provide the parking space to the complainant as per term and condition of the Flat Buyer Agreement. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.25000/- to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the parking space is not available with the OPs, in that eventuality, OPs are bound to refund the amount of Rs.75000/- (parking charges) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization to the complainant. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated: 08.07.2024   

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Vineet Kaushik)       

                           Member