Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/120/2019

Vijay Kanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal Adv. & Nipun Gupta Adv.

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	120 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	08.03.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	01.06.2023

 

 

 

 

 

1]  Vijay Kanta wife of Sh.Narinder Pal;

2]  Vineet Samnol son of Sh.Narinder Pal;

Both resident of Ward No.3, Samnol House, Opposite State Bank of Patiala, Mahatpur, Una (Himachal Pradesh)

             …..Complainants

 

Versus

1]  M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., having Corporate Office- SCO No.139-140, 1^st Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director

2]  M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., having registered office at Omaxe City, 111^th Milestone, Near Bad Ke Bala Ji Bus Stand, Jaipur-Ajmer Express Way, Jaipur, Rajasthan through its M.D.

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MRS.SURJEET KAUR PRESIDING MEMBER

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

Argued by:-     Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel of Complainant.

Sh.Ujjawal Sharma, Adv. proxy for Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel of OPs

 

 

PER  B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        In a nutshell, the complainants case is that they were allotted a Residential Unit No.CRC/668B/UGF/1 by OPs in their project namely ‘Celestia Royal, Chandigarh” at Omaxe New Chandigarh, Distt. SAS Nagar, Punjab vide Allotment Letter dated 23.9.2016, on receipt of initial amount as well as remaining scheduled payments. However, the final payment was to be made at the time of offer of possession.  Accordingly, the OPs vide letter dated 23.6.2018 offered the possession of said unit to the complainant with a request to deposit the remaining payment. The complainants deposited the balance amount of Rs.41,58,681.34 with the OPs well within time vide cheque dated 4.7.2018.  However, the OPs despite assurance and promise, failed to deliver the actual physical possession of the Unit in question, complete in all respect, within a month or two from the date of the receipt of complete balance amount and ultimately handed over the possess only on 30.1.2019 (Ann.C-3) i.e. after 6 months’ period from the receipt of balance amount due to which the complainant suffered financial loss as well as harassment and agony. It is also submitted that though as per allotment letter and other terms, the OPs were liable to provide lift in the building, but despite all that the OPs refused  to  provide  such  facility.  Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

       

2]       The OPs have filed joint written statement and took objection that the complaint being beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission deserves to be dismissed.  On merits, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, it is stated that vide offer letter dated 23.6.2018, the complainants were to make the payments within 15 days and thereafter, the unit was to be given finishing touches and possession was to be handed over, but the complainants made the last payment on 10.8.2018. It is also stated that the complainant were to come to Unit and take over physical possession after executing necessary documents, but they did not come despite reminders and then ultimately took over the possession without any protest or grievance on 30.1.2019. It is submitted that lifts have also been installed in the building of complainants. It is also submitted that the possession of the unit in question has been taken by complainants without protest and more so, lift has also been provided, so the complainants are not entitled to any claim and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Denying other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder to the reply of OPs has also been filed by the complainant. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.

 

6]      The main claim of the complainants is for grant of interest & compensation for the delayed period in handing over possession of the Unit in question by the OPs after taking final payment/installment, whereas the claim in respect of providing lift has been solved after having been provided by OPs.   

 

7]       To this, the stand taken by the OPs that the complainants instead of making payment within 15 days, as demanded vide letter dated 23.6.2018, made it much later on 10.8.2018, is falsified from their own Statement Ann.OP-3 wherefrom it is proved that the cheque No.091534, so paid by the complainants to the OPs on 4.7.2018 stands credited in favour of OPs on 5.7.2018.  Once the final payment has been received by the OPs on 5.7.2018, well within prescribed time limit of 15 days, then they should not have taken more than a month or two months period to handover the possession of the Unit in question to the complainants, but they delivered it only on 30.1.2019 after about 6 months period from the date of the receipt of the final payment, which is not unfair and unjustified.  Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is proved, which certainly has caused loss and harassment to the complainants.

 

8]       Since total claim of the complainants is less than Rs.10 lacs, as is clear from the calculation of amount so filed by the complainant, therefore, the present complaint falls well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and the objection, raised by OPs, to this effects is rejected being untenable. 

 

9]       Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the complaint stands partly allowed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 with direction to pay a lumpsum compensation amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainants towards loss, harassment, mental agony as well as litigation expenses.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.25,000/- apart from above relief.  

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01^st June, 2023            

                                                                                                Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER