Haryana

Panchkula

CC/91/2015

Nitin Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Suncity Projects - Opp.Party(s)

Amitabh Suri

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                      

Consumer Complaint No	:	91 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	14.05.2015
Date of Decision	:	01.10.2015

                                                                                          

Nitin Garg son of R.K. Garg, resident of House No. 1283, Sector 21, Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., Suncity Business Towers 2^nd Floor golf course Road, Sector 54-Gurgaon Haryana through its Directors, Partners, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director.

 

2^nd Address

 

M/s Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. LGF-10 Vasant Square Mall, Plot-A Sector B, Pocket-V Community Centre, Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070 through its Directors, Partners, Chief Executive Officer, and Managing Director.

 

Site Address

 

Parikrama situated at Sector 20 Panchkula Haryana c/o M/s Suncity projects pvt. Ltd. through its Directors, Partners, Chief Executive Officer, and Managing Director.

                                                                           ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                  Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr. S.P. Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Amitabh Suri, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Mr.Jagdeep Rana, Adv., for the OP.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Op with the averments that he purchased apartment in Parikrama situated at Sector 20, Panchkula from opposite party vide application PGH/II/2150/866 for Apartment No. 901, Tower No. 2A at 9^th Floor measuring 2150 sq. feet. The agreement was executed between the parties on 10.01.2011 for the total sale value of Rs.73,53,523/-. In pursuance of the agreement, the complainant deposited Rs.19,35,000/- at the time of execution of agreement (Annexure C-2).  As per agreement, the possession would be given on or before 09.01.2014 and also promised to comply with norms of government, & for providing the basic amenities to the customers.  As per clause 25 of agreement, if there was any delay in giving a possession of flat to complainant, he would be compensated by OP with Rs.10/- per square feet. But the possession of the flat was not given to the complainant and after 10 months of delay he was forced to sell the apartment to someone else. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on his part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The OP appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections & submitted that the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer. It is submitted that the complainant himself admitted that he has sold the apartment to someone else on 14.11.2014. It is submitted that the complainant requested the OP vide request letter dated 30.10.2014 alongwith Assignment deed and supporting Affidavit cum Indemnity to transfer the allotment in favour of Sh.Santosh Sharma son of Sh.Ram Phal Sharma. After the transfer of booking of flat, the complainant has been left with no relation, lien, charge, interests or attachment with the booking/allotment or with the OP.  It is submitted that the complainant booked the apartment No. 901, Tower 2-A, Parkarma, Sector-20, Panchkula for not self-residential purpose but for investment purpose only. It is submitted that the Apartment Buyer Agreement was signed on 10.01.2011. It is denied that the total sale value of the apartment was Rs. 73,53,523/-.  It is submitted that as per Clause 25 of the Apartment Buyer Agreement, the OP contemplated to complete the construction of the building/apartment within 3 years from the date of execution of the agreement and subject to timely payments of installments by the complainant & in case of delay in completion of construction of apartment, the OP agreed to pay compensation at Rs. 10 per sq. feet per month. It is submitted that the compensation was agreed to be adjusted at the time of execution of conveyance deed. It is submitted that the complainant was a defaulter in making timely payments of installments and delayed various installments qua demands dated 10.10.2011, 10.01.2012, 28.06.2012, 25.08.2012, 19.11.2012, 01.12,2012 and 10.01.2013.  It is submitted that there was an accrued interest of Rs. 2,46,266/- payable as on 07.11.2014 i.e. the date of transfer of allotment, had already at waived off an interest of Rs. 1,77,001/- .  It is submitted that after transfer of the allotment, the OP vide letter dated 18.11.2014 had also communicated the confirmation to the new allottee as well as the complainant.  It is denied that complainant was forced to sell the allotment on 14.11.2014. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 & Annexure C- and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure RA alongwith documents Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-2 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The complainant has admitted in his complaint in para 6 of the complaint that the possession of the flat was not given to the complainant on or before 09.01.2014 which was not delivered by the Op due to this reason the complainant was forced to sell the apartment to someone else on 14.11.2014 approx. after 10 months of delay as per the agreement. The Op by filing their reply raised preliminary objection that the complainant has no locus standi or any cause of action to file the present complaint as he has admitted that he has sold the apartment to someone else on 14.11.2014.
6. The fundamental point touching the very locus standi of the complainant to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum would require adjudication at the very first instance. Since the preliminary objection has been raised by the Op that the flat in question has been sold on 14.11.2014 as such the complaint is not maintainable under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act. The law on the point authoritively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (c) No.13917 of 2009 titled as Suraj Lamp & Industrial Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Haryana and others decided on 11.10.2011 and our Hon’ble State Commission has decided the issue in appeal No.712 of 2006 decided on 23.05.2012 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority versus R.T.Batra. In this context reference may also be made to the case titled Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust v. Major Amrit Lal Saini I (2008) CPJ 249 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that

“12. Another issue which has been agitated before us is that the plot in question has since been sold for a consideration of Rs.10 lakh out of which way back in 2001, the complainant has received Rs.6 lakh and the balance Rs.4 lakh later on having transferred his right during the pendency of the complaint. In these circumstances whether the complainant would still remain a consumer or not? We have our serious reservation on this point. Having disposed of the property during the pendency of the complaint, in our view, the complainant would cease to be a consumer.”

7.  The judicial pronouncement quoted above proved that want of locus standi on the part of the complainant to file the complaint and non-maintainability of the complaint before District Forum. No other point was argued before us to persuade us to the contrary.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to records after due compliance.

 

 

Announced           (S.P.Attri)             (Anita Kapoor)          (Dharam Pal)

01.10.2015           Member                 Member                      President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                            

                                                          Dharam Pal,                                                                                                        President