| The revision petitioner, Ms. Vandana Aggarwal has challenged the decision of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.178 of 2010. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the Complainant (present revision petitioner) in limine, confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint. 2. The facts as seen from the record, relate to purchase of a fully developed flat of HIG category for a consideration of Rs.37,50,000/-. The sale deed in this behalf was registered on 15.6.2007. Over two years later, the consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum on 17.12.2009, alleging that a) at the time of agreement for sale, the Complainant was offered covered car-parking but was given only an open parking; and b) on taking possession it was found that the area of the flat given by the opposite parties was only 1380 square feet and not 1500 square feet as per the agreement. Allegedly, for the above two variations, the Complainant had been charged Rs.3,63,000/- extra. (Rs.2,88,000/- for the flat and Rs.75,000/- for the parking). However, the claim of the Complainant before the District Forum did not stop there and went on to seek another Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. 3. The reply of the opposite party (Mahagun Developers Ltd.), as per their written response before the District Forum, was that most of the flats in this project had already been sold. Flat No.1302 was one of the left over flats and was purchased by the Complainant only after physical verification. It was further claimed that the allotment of the flat was made on 10.5.2007 and the sale deed was registered one month later, on 15.6.2007. Therefore, the Complainant had ample time and opportunity to verify physical details before registering the purchase. It was also clarified in the written response that:- he subject flat is part of group housing complex. The measurement of the flat is undertaken on super area basis. The uper areacomprises of the covered area, areas under walls, full areas of balconies, cupboards, full area of attached terrace which is covered by projection and other projections whatsoever together with proportionate share in the common facilities such as area under staircases, lifts, lobbies, entrance and exits of the building, water supply arrangements, storage tanks and installations such as power, light, sewerage etc., and including all easement rights attached to the said unit. It is further provided in the letter of allotment that if there are any changes in the boundaries or areas of the said apartment, the same shall be valid and binding on the allottees. The revised price would be as applicable on the original price on pro-rate basis if the increase or decrease exceeds 3% of the original super area. The super area chart annexed with the complaint is denied. The super area calculations as apportioned and divided amongst the various buildings in the complex goes to prove that the apportionment is not only within the permissible contractual conditions but fairly and equitably distributed amounts the entire complex of the group housing scheme. 4. The position as brought out in the response of the OP is referred to in the order of the District Forum, which held that the Complainant had sufficient time to check and verify all details before concluding the purchase, since she had booked the flat when it was already ready for occupation. The District Forum therefore observed that the claim of the Complainant appears to be an afterthought and dismissed the same. While agreeing with the District Forum, the State Commission observed that despite having given an undertaking in the registered sale deed that the vendee will not raise any objections with regard to construction area and measurements, the complaint had been filed seeking to raise the issue of measurement. The State Commission has therefore, held that the vendee /purchaser is now estopped from raising any such objections. 5. We have perused the revision petition and the records produced by the two parties. We have also heard Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Atul Nigam, Advocate for the respondent. It needs to be pointed out that the revision petition is a mere re-narration of the case of the petitioner/Complainant. It does not show in what manner the orders of the fora below have misinterpreted or ignored any specific evidence before them. The averments in the revision petition do not travel beyond the realm of vague allegations without any reference to supporting evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the computation of amount for the usage right of parking. The amount charged is shown as Rs.1,25,000/-. The other two categories of the parking, as per the same document, were chargeable at Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively. There is nothing in this document to support the claim of the Complainant that only Rs.50,000/- was chargeable for the parking allocated to him. 7. Proceedings before this Commission also show that on 4.3.2011 and again on 21.3.2012 requests were made on behalf of the revision petitioner for time to produce relevant documents to show the exact date of possession of the flat. Time sought was allowed but no documents were produced. From the documents later brought on record by the respondent, we find that physical possession of the flat No.1302 was accepted by the revision petitioner on 7.6.2007. The document is listed as Certificate of Transfer of Possession and is numbered 197 of 7.6.2007. This shows clearly that the possession was taken sufficiently before the date of registration of sale, as mentioned in the written response of the OP. 8. In the result, we find that the revision petitioner has failed miserably to make out any case against the impugned order. Therefore, the revision petition fails for want of merit and is dismissed as such. Further, considering the conduct of the petitioner as detailed above, we also deem it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.20,000/- for attempt to misuse the process of law and for wasting the time of this Commission. The same shall be paid in the onsumer legal aid accountof this Commission within a period of three months. Failing this, the amount shall carry interest at 10% per annum, for the period of delay. | |
