District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 30/2022.
Date of Institution: 18.01.2022.
Date of Order:08.05.2023.
Mr. Nirmal Chandra Sahoo, B-4/502, NHPC Residential Complex Surajkund road, Sector-41, Faridabad. Now at present R/o A-3/14A, Green power Residency , Sector-75, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. SLF Anushree Apartments, (A.O.P) At M-95 Lower Ground Floor, Greater Kailash-11, New Delhi – 110 048 (An association of persons of M/s. Anushree Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. Having registered office at B-101, Durga Vihar, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi – 110 062) through its Managing Director.
2. M/s. Swatantra Land & Finance Private Limited, At M-95, Lower Ground floor, Grater Kailash-II, New Delhi – 110 048 through its Managing Director.
3. Green Power Welfare Society, 603, Urja Vihar CGHS, GH-9, Sector-45, Faridabad Haryana through its President.
…Opposite parties
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Manish Verma, counsel for the complainant.
Ms. Meenakshi Singla , counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that opposite party NO.1 owns land measuring 87 kanal 8 marla i.e.10.925 acres at village Martjapur (residential zone of Sector-75 & 76) District Faridabad. The opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 had entered into a collaboration agreement dated 01.02.2006 for development of aforesaid land measuring 10.925 acres and thereafter the opposite party No.1 & 2 had executed another documents dated 01.05.2007 which had been named as “Association of Persons” and decided carry on the construction, development and marketing of aforesaid Group Housing colony in the name and style of SLF Anushree Apartments at Sector-75, Faridabad. The complainant being the member of opposite party No.3 had submitted an application to opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 to purchase a flat in aforesaid towers No. A-3 and A-4 of aforesaid Group Housing Colony and accordingly opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 allotted a flat No. 14A having super Built up area of 1836 sq. feet, situate don 13th floor of tower No. A-3. In this regard opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 issued a allotment letter on 15.03.2012 and same day opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 entered into a Builder Buyer Agreement with the complainant. As per clause 4.3 of the agreement all the opposite parties would handover the possession of the flat within 36 months from the date of signing of the builder buyer agreement i.e. 15.03.2022. As per the term of agreement the due date for handing over the possession of the flat was on 15.03.2015 but all the opposite party offered the possession only of the flat on 15.03.2015 but all the opposite party offered the possession only of the flat on 15.3.2016 only after delay of 12 months even after considering the grace period without completion of work and electricity connection and proper DG sets. The total value of the flat was mentioned in the Builder Buyer Agreement was Rs.29,50,000/- and the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.50 lacs including PLC of Rs.1 lac time to time but all the opposite parties failed to deliver the actual physical possession of the aforesaid flat within stipulated period. It was also mentioned in clause No. 4.3 of Builder Buyer agreement that in case of delay in handing over the possession the opposite parties should not be liable to pay an interest, penalty or compensation to buyer. But on the other hand, it had been mentioned in clause NO.2.6 of Builder Buyer Agreement that in case of delay of paying installments within time by the complainant then opposite parties should charge 18% p.a. interest from the complainant which was contravention for fairness of the agreement and unfair trade practice. The complainant had got sanctioned housing loan from State Bank of India and paying huge interest per month since 2012 to till date, amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- and due to delay on the part of all opposite patties to complete the construction of the flat and handing over the actual vacant physical possession of the flat complainant paying interest to the bank which was an extra burden on the shoulder of complainant for which all opposite parties were responsible. As per the account statement given by all opposite parties to complainant on 15.3.2016, complainant had paid amount of Rs.44,53,223/- and opposite parties raised the demand of balance amount i.e.3,79,790/- and accordingly being a sincere member of society complainant had paid balance amount also. It was mentioned that opposite parties in account statement had not reflected the PLC amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the complainant to the opposite parties and its shows unfair trade practice by all the opposite parties. After a long gap opposite parties applied for occupation certificate in the year of 2018 and lastly on 02.04.2019 occupation certificate issued by the director town & country planning department to the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 and then opposite parties provided the electricity connection in the year of 2019. On dated 24.09.2020 opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 sent a letter through email to the complainant regarding execution of conveyance deed and deed of apartment and raised the demand of balance amount registration charge, misc. expenses and NOC from opposite party No.3 etc. and then the complainant made the payment of Rs.1,63,899/- on 16.10.2020 against balance amount and Rs.2,02,000/- and 25,006/- for stamp duty as well as for registration on 23.10.2020 and payment of Rs.13,500/- for misc. expenses on 11.11.2020. The demand of NOC from opposite party No.3 was illegal when the opposite party was not a party of the Builder Buyer Agreement signed by the complainant. As per the account statement given by all opposite parties to the complainant on 15.3.2016, complainant had paid amount Rs.44,53,223/- and opposite parties raised the demand of balance amount i.e.3,79,790/- and accordingly being a sincere member of society complainant had paid balance amount also. The complainant sent legal notice dated 22.10.2021 to the opposite party through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) execute the conveyance deed and deed of apartment in favour of complainant of the flat No. A-3/14A, at Green Power Residency Sector-75 Faridabad and further directed to opposite parties to pay all future expenses those likely to occurred on execution of the conveyance deed and deed of apartment and for travelling also.
b) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.12,00,000/-to the complainant those paid by complainant to the State Bank of India towards the excess interest due to delay in handing over the actual possession of the flat.
c) pay Rs. 75,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that opposite party No.1 had not withheld the registration of conveyance deed of complainant. As per opposite party No.1’s understanding with FPWS, opposite party No.1 need NOC of GPWS for execution and registration of conveyance deed and deed of apartments of flats. Opposite party No.1 had repeatedly requested complainant to provide NOC of GPWS for registration of complainant’s conveyance deed and deed of apartment, however, complainant failed to provide the same and emails in this regard had been file d by complainant himself. Vide email dated 16.10.2020, GPWS had informed opposite party No.1 that complainant had not cleared the payments of GPWS and therefore, they had not issued NOC to him. Opposite party No.1 was ready and willing to execute the conveyance deed and connected documents of flat in question in favour of complainant as and when opposite party No.1 received the NOC of opposite party No.3 or as directed by this Hon’ble Commission. However, stamp duty, registration charges and expenses involved in registration of conveyance deed were to be borne by the complainant himself. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that interest of Rs.14,972/- for delay in payment of installments and advance amount of Rs.25,000/- taken by the complainant for meet out the day to day expenditure of GPWS (totally Rs.39,972/-) was outstanding to be paid by the complainant. It might be noted that upon payment of aforesaid outstanding money by complainant same would not be pocketed by anyone but would be used for clearing the liabilities of GPWS and for benefit of 152 members of the society including for purchase of DG for common use. Immediately on payment of aforesaid outstanding amount conveyance deed in respect of concerned flat would be executed in favour of the complainant. Needless to say that stamp duty, registration charges and expenses involved in registration of the conveyance deed would be payable by complainant. Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–M/s. SLF Anushree Apartment & Others with the prayer to: a) execute the conveyance deed and deed of apartment in favour of complainant of the flat No. A-3/14A, at Green Power Residency Sector-75 Faridabad and further directed to opposite parties to pay all future expenses those likely to occurred on execution of the conveyance deed and deed of apartment and for travelling also. b) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs.12,00,000/-to the complainant those paid by complainant to the State Bank of India towards the excess interest due to delay in handing over the actual possession of the flat. c) pay Rs. 75,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Nirmal Chandra, Ex.C-1 – Builder Buyer Agreement, Ex.C-2 – allotment letter, Ex.C-3 – sanction letter,, Ex.C-4 – letter, Ex.C-5 – letter dated 02.04.2019, Ex.C-6 – email dated 24.09.2020, Ex.C-7 - Statement of account, Ex.C-8 – e-Receipt, Ex.C-9 & 10 – Beneficiary details, Ex.C-11 – Statement for the period from 23.10.2020 to 23.10.2020, Ex.C-12 to 14 – email, ex.C-15 – letter dated 15.03.2016 regarding letter for the offer of possession, Ex.C-16 – Total payment received from members upto 15.5.2017, Ex.C-17 – total payment received from members upto 10.06.2017, Ex.C-18 – outstanding payment as on 31.12.2017, Ex.C-19 – total payment and outstanding from members as on 28.02.2018, Ex.C-20 – legal notice, Ex.C-21 to 23 - postal receipts, Ex.C-25 to 27 – postal receipts,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/1 – affidavit of Ajay Madan, Ex.R-1/1 – email dated 16.10.2020.
As per evidence of opposite party No.3 Ex.RW-3/1 – affidavit of Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Rajrup Ram (President), M.L.Meena S/o Shri M.C. Meena (Secretary), Omkar Nath S/o Shri Chandrika Prasad (Vice President) and R.S.Rawat S/o Shri G.S.RAwat (Treasure), the office bearers of Green Power Welfare Society having office at 603, Urja Vihar, CGHS, GH-9, Sector-45, Faridabad , Ex.R-3/1 – registration certificate of GPWS, Ex.R-3/2 – agreement, Ex.R-3/3 – statement,, Ex.R-3/4 – Resolution, Ex.R-3/5 – certificate.
7. In this case, the complaint was filed with the prayer to issue the conveyance deed of apartment in favour of complainant of the flat No. A-3/14A, at Green Power Residency Sector-75 Faridabad.
8. During the course of arguments, counsel for the opposite party argued at length and stated at Bar that the complainant is the member of the society as per the evidence led by the opposite parties. It is admitted fact that the complainant was the member of the society. Counsel for the opposite parties also stated at Bar that they are ready to issue the conveyance deed after taking the stamp papers by the complainant in due course of law, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/-. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant stated at Bar that he has already spent Rs.15,000/-.
9. Keeping in view of the above submissions as well as the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite parties to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant as per the T& C of the agreement after taking the balance payment, if any. There are no order as to costs. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 08.05.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
