Delhi

StateCommission

CC/206/2018

RAJIV YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SUPERTECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ABHINAV TATHAGAT

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Complaint Case No.206/2018

 

 

Shri Rajiv Yadav

S/o Shri Mangroo Yadav,

B-504, Supertech Livingston,

Crossing Republik, Ghaziabad.                                                … Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

 

M/s. Supertech Ltd.

1114, 11^th Floor, Hemkunt Chambers,

89, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019.                                   … Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

For the Complainant

Mr. Abhinav Tathagat, Counsel for the Complainant.

 

 

Dated: 23^rd July, 2018

 

 

ORDER

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. A complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) is filed by the complainants Mr. Rajiv Kumar wherein it is stated that he had booked a unit with the OP in May 2007 and made payments from time to time. According, to the complainant, OP had promised to deliver the vacant possession of the flat alongwith other amenities within 02 years from the date of booking or maximum by December 2009. It is alleged that despite taking full price of the flat from the complainant, OP delivered the possession only in September 2015 and did not pay any penalty for delayed possession as per terms and condition of the agreement. It is alleged that due to non-delivery of the flat the complainant had to take a flat on rent in the year 2010 and had paid Rs.20,000/- per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs.22,000/- per month. It is alleged that even the interest is wrongly charged from him. By way of the present complaint, the complainant has made following prayers:

 

1. Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.33,45,540/- towards various claims as detailed in para 28 above.

 

2. Allow the pendete lite interest @18% per annum on Rs.33,45,540/- from the date of filing the present complaint till the present case is finally decided and future interest @18% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of decree till the date of actual payment.

 

3. The opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards litigation charges.

 

2. The complaint is listed for admission hearing.
3. Perusal of the material on record shows that the complainant has already taken the possession on 05.09.2015. There is a letter in this regard on record and also a check list dated 06.09.2016 executed by the complainant to the effect that fitting and fixtures are in order. The sale deed was also executed in favour of the complainant on 22.04.2016. Perusal of the possession letter shows that the complainant has settled all dues and payment fully and finally with the OP after taking over the physical possession of the flat and has agreed that he shall not have claim of any nature against the OP. Relevant clause in this regard is as under:

 

“Handed over the physical possession of the flat/Unit/space No. Flat # 0504, block B, 5^th Floor admeasuring 1425 sq. ft. in Project named Supertech Livingston, Crossings Republik at Plot -06, Behind ABES Engg. NH-24, Ghaziabad in fully finished conditions on 05.09.2015 to Mr. Rajiv Yadav s/o Mangroo Yadav r/o M-25, VDA Colony Phase II, Chnadmani, Baralalpur, Varanasi – 221007 as per the provision of the allotment letter and brochure as under.

 

(e)        The allottee(s) acknowledge and declares that he/she has settled all dues and payments, fully and finally with the Company and after taking over the physical possession of the Flat/Unit/Space, he/she shall not have claim of  any nature, whatsoever, against the company in respect of said Flat/Unit/Space.”

 

 

4. As per the aforesaid letter, possession is taken on 05.09.2015 and complaint is filed on 21.02.2018 i.e. after lapse of more than two years from the date of taking possession. The deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is alleged on the part of OP after the expiry period of limitation as provided under Section 24A of the Act. The complaint is time barring. Further, in any event, the complainant has no case on merits also. While taking the possession of the flat complainant has declared that he has settled all claim fully and finally and is left with no claim of any nature whatsoever against the OP in respect of the Unit in question. It is not the stand of the complainant that the said acknowledgement/declaration was given by him under force or duress. In these circumstances, the complaint stands dismissed in limine.

                 A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge. 

                 File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

Tri