Delhi

New Delhi

CC/208/2007

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Dec 2019

ORDER

                                       

                                              CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.TC.208/2007                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Sanjeev Kulshreshtha,

S/o Sh. R.P. Kulshreshtha,

                R/o C-12 A Type B First Floor,

                Prasvnath Paradise,

                Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad,

                               ....COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

            Parsvnath Developers Ltd.,

            6^th Floor, Arunachal Building,

           19, Barakhamba Road,

           New Delhi-110001.

           

....OPPOSITE PARTY

NIPUR CHANDNA- MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the  complainant purchased a flat No.C-12, A-Type, 1^st Floor of Parsavnath Paradise, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad and  paid a sum of Rs.39,750/- against advance booking on 12.6.2003 to the OP, the same was duly acknowledged by OP.  The official of the OP assured the complainant that the construction is going to start immediately  and the  he  would get the possession within 15 months. Thereafter, the complainant made further payment to the  OP as per the payment schedule.  Agreement was signed on 22.7.2003 after booking of the flat consisting of clause –(12a) and (12c) which talks about the possession and penalty amount. Somewhere,  in the month of October 2004, the complainant visited the site and found that after 6 months of commencement of work, only outer structural work was completed.  The complainant immediately wrote a letter thereby asking the OP about the possession and delay penalty.  The OP vide its letter dt. 14.1.2005 informed the complainant that the construction of the flat is as per the schedule and completion certificate has been applied to the Ghaziabad Development Authority.  Once the completion is received, the complainant would be informed accordingly.

 

2.      Ii is further stated that while making the final payment only one head was waived by OP and for delay in possession. It was informed that the delay  was on account of Ghaziabad Development Authority  and same was covered by clause mentioning “FORCE MAJEURE”, therefore, nothing was reduced on this head.  The complainant made entire payment to the OP without prejudice to his right.  Being unsatisfied with the reply of OP, the complainant asked for information from Ghaziabad Development Authority under RTI Act from where he came to know that no completion certificate was asked by the OP. After receiving the information, complainant felt cheated and deceived by the OP, hence he approached this Forum for unfair trade practices adopted by OP, claiming the relief.

 

3.     Earlier, the present complaint was disposed off by our predecessor bench vide its order dt. 3.8.2007.  An Appeal against the impugned order was preferred.  The Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi vide its order dt. 10.1.2008 remanded back the present complaint to this Forum with the direction to decide a fresh.

4.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  After the completion of the pleadings, the matter was kept for final arguments, however, despite several opportunities, none appeared on behalf of complainant, hence the present complaint stands dismissed in default vide order dt. 11.9.2018 of this Hon’ble Forum,  An Appeal against the impugned order was preferred.  The Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi vide its order dt. 6.8.2019 remanded back the present complaint to this Forum with the direction to restore the same to its original position and decide a fresh in accordance with law.

5.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

 

6.     It is argued on behalf of complainant that he is entitled for the delay possession penalty as well as for refund of the extra amount charged by OP for necessary amenities i.e. electricity meter installation and misc. Expenses which was arbitrarily charged by OP. 

 

7.     On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the OP that the complainant was given the waiver of interest on delayed payment and thereafter, he executed the sale deed without any demur.  The aforesaid facts was duly recorded in clause 2 of the sale deed.  It is further argued that the complainant has alleged in his complaint  that he is entitled for refund of the extra amount charged by OP for necessary amenities i.e. electricity meter installation and misc. Expenses, whereas on the ordersheet dt. 3.8.07, the complainant had made an endorsement to the effect that his grievance has been addressed and now the only question for determination was compensation and litigation expenses and prayed that the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

 

8.     We are in agreement with the  contention, of the counsel for OP.  Perusal of clause 2, the contents of which are reproduced as under:

 

“The owners have handed over the vacant physical possession of the said floor to the purchased and the purchaser confirms having taken over of the same after satisfying himself that the construction as also various installations like electrification work, sanitary fittings, water and sewerage connection etc. have been made and provided in accordance with the requisite drawings, design and specifications and further confirms that the purchaser has not claim  against the owners as to any item of work material, quality of work and installations in the said floor or on any other ground whatsoever”.

 

 

9.     This clearly shows that the complainant has himself admitted in this clause that he has no claim against the OP as to any item of work, material, quality of work and installation in the said floor or any other ground whatsoever.  The complainant by executing the convince deed, terminate the ABA  and discharge the OP, and hence, the complainant does not fall in the category of consumer.  Reliance has been placed on the latest judgment  Hon’ble National Commission” titled as Rashid Ahmed Usmani & Ors. Vs. DLF Ltd. Vol.IV 2019 CPJ 52(NC)

10.    The complainant having executing the sale deed and taking the possession of the flat had lost his character as a consumer and not  entitled to receive any further relief claim  from OP. 

11.    In the light of above discussion we find no merits in the complaint.  The same is hereby dismissed

 

A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on12/12/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(NIPUR CHANDNA)

MEMBER