Haryana

Sonipat

CC/371/2016

Vijay Kumari - 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.371 of 2016                                              Instituted on:14.09.2016

                                Date of order:19.12.2016

 

 

1.Vijay Kumari wife of Manoj Kumar son of Gulab Singh,

2.Manoj Kumar son of Gulab Singh, both residents of Villa NO.322, Block B, Sector 19, Village and poset office Shanpur Turk, Omaxe City, Sonepat.

..Complainants

                      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

 

          Complainants have filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that the respondent has allotted a villa bearing no.322 in Block B 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 Anita Jain and accordingly, the agreement was executed in favour of Anita Jain on 28.09.2006.  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 sale consideration amount of the said villa in time and without making any delay to the company.  The respondent has delivered the actual possession of the said Villa to the first conveyance deed owner on 21.12.2011 i.e. on the date of registration of the conveyance deed. After getting physical possession on 26.05.2011, the complainants came to know about the letter issued by the Govt.    The company has received the cost of excess super area from the complainants alongwith other residents wrongly and illegally and the company is liable to refund the amount of excess super area to the complainants.   Ultimately on 8.7.2015,  the complainants submitted an application to the respondent to refund the amount of excess super area wrongly and malafidely charged. But the respondent refused to accept the request of the complainants, 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, they have 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 Anita Jain.  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 Anita Jain on 28.9.2006 regarding the villa in question. Conveyance deed R-1 was registered in favour of Anita Jain on 21.12.2011. Schedule of Villa and Layour Plan of plot no.322 of Block B at Sector 19 omaxe City Sonepat is also attached with the conveyance deed registered in favour of previous owner Anita Jain.  The Villa in question remained in possession of Anita Jain till 5.5.2015 and she has utilized the said villa as per her wishes.  On 5.5.2015, the said villa was sold by Anita Jain to Vijay Kumari, the present complainant.  The present complainant has purchased the said villa to her entire satisfaction from the previous owner Anita Jain.  During the period  the said Villa remained in possession of Anita Jain till 5.5.2015, Anita Jain 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 5.5.2015 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