Delhi

StateCommission

CC/280/2016

MR. SUDHIR JOSHI & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

TULIKA PRAKASH

24 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments: 24.05.2016

Date of Decision: 03.06.2016

Complaint No.280/16

 

In the matter of:

1. Mr. Sudhir Joshi

S/o Mr. Harish C. Joshi.

 

2. Mrs. Ritu Joshi,

W/o Mr. Sudhir Joshi,

 

Both r/o Aspire/2-901,

8^th Floor, Supertech Emerald Court,

Plot No.4, Sector 93-A,

Expressway, Noida (UP).                                                          .......Complainants

 

Versus

1. Supertech Ltd.

Registered Office at 1114, 11^th Floor,

Hemkunt Chambers, 89, Nehru Place,

New Delhi-110019.

Through its Chairman, Mr. R.K. Arora.

 

2. Mr. A.K. Jain,

Director & Authorised Signatory,

M/s. Supertech Estate Pvt. Ltd.,

Seated at, the Head Office,

Supertech House, B-28 & 29,

Sector-58, Noida (UP).

 

3. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,

Administrative Office,

Sector-6, Noida-201301.

Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.                                    …....Opp. Parties

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. The present complaint at the stage of admission involves two questions. One is as to the what effect of sale deed executed in favour of complainant and other is whether whether complaint is within limitation.

 

2. The background of the case is that in 2007, the complainant applied for booking of Unit No.Aspire/2-901, 8^th Floor, measuring 2350 sq.ft. in the project named Supertech Emerald Court, Noida. They made full down payment at the initial stage i.e. Rs.95,51,500/-. The OP promised to handover the  possession within one  year. After inordinate delay of three years, a letter offering possession was sent to complainant-2 on 05.07.2011. The same was a smart device to pressurize the complainants into accepting unfinished dwelling unit and compelling them to pay heavy maintenance charges. OP-1 issued another letter dated 09.02.2012 interest for handing over possession to the complainants. The complainants found no way out of this hopeless situation and to prevent the problem from escalating further paid the sum of Rs.6,47,500/- vide cheque dated 20.04.2012 towards increased area charges, Rs.1,39,086/-  towards advance maintenance charges from 01.05.2012 to 30.04.2014 which  they were not liable to pay at that stage. Upon entering the dwelling unit they were completely taken a back and horrified to find that the unit was in a very shabby condition with serious seepage problem in the living room and bed room, doors  were misaligned, shower cubicles, exhaust and basement was not ready. The OP coerced  the complainants into execution of a sub-lease deed stamp dated 28.02.2013 for the aforesaid unit in question, which was inclusive of the servant room, which eventually was declared illegal by the office of the OP-3.  Vide letters dated 26.03.2013 and 05.08.2013 OP-1 informed that servant room (renamed storeroom) was illegal and would not be handed over. Hence, this complaint for direction to the OP to pay Rs.12,69,100/- including penal interest @24% per annum towards unlawful area increased, Rs.13,14,000/- including penal interest @24% per annum towards cost of illegal basement store, Rs.4,38,000/- including penal interest @24% per annum towards illegal increased and basement store price from Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft. to Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft., Rs.4,56,300/- as penalty for late possession, Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

3. Once the sub-lease was executed and complainants took the possession, the agreement came to an end. For subsequent defect, the complainant has remedy of filing a civil suit. one. In taking this view, I am fortified by decision of National Commission in Samita Roy V/s. Excel Construction and others 11 (2012) CPJ 204.

 

4. As regards limitation, it may be observed that possession was taken in 2012, the complaint has been filed in 2016 and is barred by limitation. The complaint is dismissed in limini.

 

5. A copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)