Haryana

Sonipat

CC/375/2016

Smt. Shukla Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Omaxe Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.P. Verma

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.375 of 2016                                              Instituted on:14.09.2016

                                Date of order:19.12.2016

 

 

Smt. Shukla Sharma wife of Jai Parkash, resident of village no.257, block A, Sector 8, villa and post office Shahpur Turk, Omaxe City, Sonepat.

..Complainant.

                      Versus

M/s Omaxe Ltd. (formerly Omaxe Construction Ltd.) having its registered office at Omaxe House, 7 Local Shopping Centre, Kalka Ji, New Delhi-19 through its Authorized signatory at Omaxe City, Sonepat situated at Sector 8, Sonepat in the revenue estate of village Rewli, Kumaspur and Raipur Turk.                                          

..Respondent.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. SP Verma, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Pankaj Karnatak, Authorized Representative for

           Respodnent.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          J.L. GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that the respondent has allotted a villa bearing no.257 in Block A vide allotment letter dated 12.7.2006 having built up area approximately 92.3472 Sq. meters (998 sq. feet) on the plot area approximately 161.99 sq. meters (193.75 sq. yards) in favour of one Manju Vishavkarma wife of LL Vishavkarma and accordingly, the conveyance deed was executed in her favour on 20.10.2011.  Thereafter the complainant has purchased the said villa from Manju Vishavkarma vide registered sale deed dated 2.1.2015 and thus, she has stepped into the shoes of second allottee. As per 26 Clause F of the agreement,  in case of delay in construction of the said villa, the company would pay a sum at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. feet of the super area per month for the period of delay to the buyer provided, however, that the buyer has made payment of all installments towards the ale consideration amount of the said villa in time and without making any delay to the company. After getting physical possession on 20.10.2011, the complainant came to know about the letter issued by the Govt.    The company has received the cost of excess super area from the complainant alongwith other residents wrongly and illegally and the company is liable to refund the amount of excess super area to the complainant.   Ultimately on 6.9.2013,  the resident welfare association  has submitted the joint application to the respondent to refund the amount of excess super area wrongly and illegally charged, but the respondent refused to accept the request of the complainant, whereas the respondent is legally bound to make the payment of compensation for excess super area to the complainant, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent in their reply has submitted that the Villa in question was provisionally allotted to Manju Vishwakarma.  NO agreement was ever executed between the complainant and respondent. There has been no privity of contract between the respondent and the complainant.   The complainant is not entitled for any relief. No excess amount has been charged from the complainant by the respondent.  No harassment has been suffered by the complainant at the hands of the respondent.  Thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the respondent since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          In the present case, on 26.10.2016, the respondent has filed an application for rejection of complaint.  Reply to this application was also filed by the complainant.

3.        We have heard the arguments on the application as well as on merits, advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties  at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        After hearing both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that on merits, there is no force in the present complaint.

          Agreement was executed by the respondent in favour of Manju Vishwakarma on  13.9.2006 regarding the villa in question. Conveyance deed R-1 was registered in favour of Manju Vishwakarma on 20.10.2011. Schedule of Villa and Layout Plan of plot no.257 of Block A at Sector 8 omaxe City Sonepat is also attached with the conveyance deed registered in favour of previous owner Manju Vishwakarma..  The Villa in question remained in possession of Manju Vishwakarma till 2.1.2015 and she has utilized the said villa as per her wishes.  On 2.1.2015, the said villa was sold by Manju Vishwakarma to Shukla Sharma, the present complainant.  The present complainant has purchased the said villa to her entire satisfaction from the previous owner Manju Vishwakarma..  During the period  the said Villa remained in possession of Manju Vishwakarma till 2.1.2015, Manju Vishwakarma has never raised any objection regarding super area etc.         In our view, the complainant after satisfying herself has purchased the Villa in question and got the sale deed in her favour on 2.1.2015 in respect of the Villa in question.  Each and everything was in the knowledge of the complainant and despite this, she has purchased the Villa in question from the previous owner. In this situation, how she can claim herself the consumer of the respondent.  So, in our view, the complainant has no right to claim the amount regarding super area or delayed delivery possession of the Villa from the respondent particularly when she ceased to be the consumer of the respondent.  In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the sale deed/conveyance deed has already been executed in favour of the complainant and the complainant is residing in the Villa in question.  In our view, it was incumbent upon the complainant to get measured the area of the Villa in question before execution and registration of the sale deed/conveyance deed, but the complainant has got measured the area of the flat after execution and registration of the sale deed/conveyance deed.  Further in the sale/conveyance deed,  the area of the Villa is mentioned. So our view, at this stage, there is no force in the contentions raised by the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any relief & compensation.  The present complaint fails and we hereby dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

         Since the main complaint of the complainant has been dismissed by this Forum, the application dated 26.10.2016 filed by the respondent for rejection of the complaint has become infructuous.  Thus, there is no need to give any separate findings on the said application.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the

parties free of cost.
          File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (JL Gupta)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:19.12.2016