Haryana

StateCommission

A/1053/2015

MANJU SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SRS REAL ESTATE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD KUMAR SHARMA

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1053 of 2015

Date of Institution:        09.12.2015

Date of Decision :         26.04.2016

 

Manju Sharma w/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Resident of 606, Zinnia Tower, Omex Green Valley, Gurukul Road, Faridabad.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

M/s SRS Real Estate Limited 124-126, Ist Floor, SRS Tower, 14/5, Mathura Road, Faridabad-121003.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri D.K. Jangra, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Siddhartha Yadav, Advocate for respondent. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated November 6^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.232 of 2014.

2.      Manju Sharma-complainant (appellant herein), booked flat No.903 with M/s SRS Real Estate Limited (for short ‘the builder’)-Opposite Parties/respondent, in Block C5, SRS Residency, Sector-88, Faridabad. She paid a sum of Rs.36,51,825/- to the builder. It is stated that after receiving the letter of offer of possession, the appellant visited the site and found that there were some defects in the flat.  The appellant approached the builder to remove the defects which the builder failed to remove. The possession being offered, the appellant resisted the same on the ground that there were some defects in the flat. The builder raising demand of Rs.1,59,265/- towards interest and Rs.59,767/- as holding charges, the appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The opposite parties/builder contested complaint by filing reply. It was admitted that the appellant had paid Rs.36,51,825/- and also that flat was allotted to the appellant. It was pleaded that the possession was offered on 29.01.2014 and the appellant was called upon to take possession before March 31^st, 2014 after making the balance payment and compliance of certain formalities. It was stated that the appellant failing to take possession, would be liable for maintenance charges and holding charges thereafter. The appellant was liable to pay interest on the delayed payments of instalments. The appellant had no source of income and intended to raise loan from Housing Finance Corporation Limited. It was denied that there were defects in the flat. The appellant was stated to be liable to pay Rs.1,59,265/- towards interest and Rs.59,767/- towards holding charges. Denying the other allegations of the appellant, dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that since the appellant had more than one flat, so she was not a ‘consumer’. Aggrieved complainant/appellant has come up in appeal.

5.      The respondent/builder has not placed on the file any evidence in support of the contention that the appellant had applied for number of flats with an intention to sell the same on profit. In absence thereof, the appellant could not be denied the right of being a ‘consumer’.

6.      Since the appellant has already deposited the entire payments and as per the builder the flat is ready, therefore, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and by allowing the complaint, the builder is directed to hand over possession of the flat in question within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellant is not liable for any holding charges. However, in terms of agreement, in the event of there being delay in the payments of installments, the builder shall be entitled to charge the same as per agreement. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

 

 

Announced 26.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL