Delhi

StateCommission

CC/118/2017

ROHIT GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S JINDAL REALTY PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SUDHIR KATHPALIA

10 Jul 2017

ORDER

 IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

 

Date of Decision:11.07.2017

 

 

Complaint Case No.118/2017

 

 

Shri Rohit Garg,

R/o House No.229, Urban Estate-II,

Hisar, Haryana.

…. Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s. Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd.,

DSM 609-610, DLF Tower 6^th Floor,

Shivaji Marg, (Najafgarh Road)

Moti Nagar, New Delhi -110015.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

  

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) filed by the complainant Shri Rohit Garg through his attorney Shri D.P. Garg, wherein it is stated that the OP is engaged in the business of developing and selling housing plots/plots to various individuals for valuable consideration. It is stated that one Mrs. Meenakshi vide Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 11.11.2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) had booked an independent plot i.e. E-122, having an area of approximately 359 sq. yds in the project of the OP, namely, Sonepat Global City at Sonepat, Haryana for a total consideration of Rs.43,56,923/-. It is alleged that believing the terms and conditions of the Agreement and believing the assurances of the OP to be correct, the complainant agreed to purchase the said plot from its previous owner Mrs. Meenakshi in the year 2013. An application was also made to OP for transfer of the allotment in favour of the complainant. It is stated that OP had issued letter dated 25.03.2013 wherein it had agreed to transfer. It is stated that the Agreement which was in favour of Mrs. Meenakshi was endorsed in favour of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant stepped into the shoes of Mrs. Meenakshi. It is stated that as per clause 8.1 of the Agreement which was duly endorsed in favour of the complainant by the OP, the possession of the plot was to be handed over within 24 months from the date of the execution of the Agreement. It is stated that in all the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.44,56,952/- to the OP and the said amount was duly acknowledged by the OP. It is stated that the OP did not hand over the possession of the plot within the agreed period. It is further stated that as per aforesaid Agreement in case of failure on the part of the OP to hand over the possession within the aforesaid period, the OP was required to pay a sum of Rs.25/- per sq. yds per month to the complainant. It is alleged that despite several promises,   the OP did not deliver the plot within the stipulated time. It is also alleged that on 07.10.2016, the complainant received the offer of possession from the OP with statement of account wherein no benefit of delay in handing over the possession was given to the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant vide letter dated 07.02.2016 and email dated 15.10.2016 duly intimated the OP, the entitlement of the complainant towards the delay compensation. However, OP vide letter dated 25.10.2016 refused to pay the compensation as agreed between the parties. Accordingly, the complainant paid the amount demanded by the OP under protest, which was duly acknowledged by the OP vide letter dated 21.11.2016. It is alleged that by 18.04.2014 the complainant had paid 95% of the total cost of the plot to the OP. It is alleged that the delay in handing over the possession amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has prayed as under:-

 

“(a)         Direct the OP to pay interest calculated @18% compounded quarterly on the amount deposited that is from the date of delay in handing of the possession after the expiry of 02 years of plot buyer’s agreement till the date the possession i.e. 07.10.2016.

(b)          Award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of causing financial risk, hardship, mental agony, harassment, emotional disturbance caused to the complainant due to actions /omissions.

 

(c)           OP may be directed to pay Rs.75,000/- as litigation costs.

 

(d)          Direct the OP to refund the electric connection charges, water connection charges and attorneys fees and extra amount of IFMS, which the complainant was coerced to pay on possession offer the plot alongwith 18%.”

 

2. The complaint was taken up for admission hearing on 20.02.2017 wherein during arguments it was noticed that  conveyance deed has already been executed in favour of the complainant and possession letter has also been issued to him. The complainant was asked to produce the aforesaid documents, which are produced today.
3. We have heard Ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record including the documents produced today.
4. It is noticed that conveyance deed in respect to the plot in question has been executed in favour of the complainant on 27.12.2016. Pursuant thereto, the complainant has given a declaration wherein it has been declared that complainant had taken exclusive, peaceful, vacant physical possession of the plot. It has been further declared by the complainant that he has no claim against the OP of any nature whatsoever on any account in terms of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement. The said declaration reads as under:

 

“I/We Mr. Rohit Gandhi S/o Mr. D.P. Garg resident of H. No.229, Urban Estate -2, Hisar, Haryana – 125001, do hereby confirm and declare that I/we have taken exclusive, peaceful, vacant physical possession of the aforesaid plot as stated hereinabove, after due inspection at my/our end to my/our complete satisfaction and henceforth have no claim against the owners of any nature whatsoever and on any account in terms of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement. I/we have seen and identified the plot on spot which is free from any type of encroachment. Now I shall be full responsible for the same and discharge the Developer/owner of all the obligations under Plot Buyers Agreement. I/we undertake to follow the provisions of HUDA Act 1977 and HUDA (Erection of Building) Regulations 1979 Haryana Urban Development Laws with the latest amendments and any other applicable laws, rules, regulation etc. I/we further undertake not to encroach upon the land belonging to the company, other allottees and the common/green areas.”

 

5. The present complaint is filed on 19.01.2017 i.e. after the execution of the aforesaid documents in favour of the complainant. We find no mention in the complaint about the aforesaid declaration and execution of the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant.  The aforesaid declaration was also not filed alongwith the complaint. It was only on being directed that the complainant has produced the same. The complainant has not disclosed the material facts fairly before us and has not approached this Commission with clean hands, which amounts to concealment of facts on the part of the complainant. The complainant ought to have disclosed about execution of aforesaid declaration in favour of OP in the complaint. The protest, if any, as is alleged was made in October, 2016. The declaration discussed above is executed on 27.12.2016 i.e. much thereafter. In these circumstances, alleged protest, if any, also losses its meaning.
6. In view of above discussion, the complaint stands dismissed in limine.
7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.  Thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member