Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1789/2009

Rajiv Dawar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Super Growth Development Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jun 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1789/09                                                                                                                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

Rajiv Dawar,

S/o Sh. A.S Dawar,

R/o F-59, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi  

 

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. Super Growth Development (P) Ltd.,

        9, K.G Marg, New Delhi

        Through its A.R,

        Sh. Praveen Arora, S/o late.         Sh. P.C Arora,

        R/o 7/24, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi

        Also at:

        G-7, Connaught Place, New Delhi

 

2. M/s. Country Wide Builders (P) Ltd.,

        7, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi

        Through its Director,

        Sh. Praveen Arora, S/o Late Sh. P.C Arora,

        R/o 7/24, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi

        Also at:

        G-7, Connaught Place, New Delhi

                                                                                                                                                                        ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President:  C.K. Chaturvedi

We have summarily considered the allegations of deficiency on the part of OP in the complaint, in the light of reply, evidence and submissions made by the parties.

The case of the complainant is that he purchased 3^rd floor of property no.1/4, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, from OP1 & OP2, who were owners of this free hold property. A formal sale deed was executed on 27.11.02. The averments in the deed assured the complainant that the property was free of all encumbrances disputes, notice from MCDS etc. The property was as per sanctioned plan of MCD.

It so happened in the year 2003 that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a writ no. 4582/2003 by the name of Kalyan Sansthan, directed MCD to seal properties where there were deviations from the sanctioned plan in Delhi. It appears that thus property including its 1^st floor and 2^nd floor were booked by MCD in 2001, for excess coverage. The owner of 1^st & 2^nd Floor got the deviations regulated by paying the compounding fee in 2005 but perhaps complainant on 3^rd floor did not pay heed to it, and continued enjoying property, till sealing orders came from High Court. Later on complainant deposited the compounding fee of about Rs.6 lakhs, to get the rectification & de-sealing of property.

The complainant has alleged deficiency on the part of OP’s in keeping him in dark in the averments of sale deed about those deviations in excess of sanctioned plan. The OP in reply has alleged that complainant being an advocate, should have checked sanctioned plans and compared with construction at site, and also should have got it compounded when similar notices were received by occupants of 1^st & 2^nd floor. The complainant has denied notice to him or other occupancy in 2005.

We have considered the rival case. The facts are admitted, and area of dispute is very narrow and transparent. The complainant has shown and OP has not denied that deviations were booked by MCD in 2001, when the building might be under construction and was with OPs. It is common practice among builders to cover extra for alluring the purchase.  This deviation and enjoyment of extra coverage by complainant would have continued for ever but for the developments leading to writ petition in High Court and direction to MCD to seal such property, till compounded or demolished if not compoundable. At the same time, complainant being advocate was equally responsible to verify and check the truth of averments in sale deed independently on the principle of caution. He cannot acquit himself of this contributory negligence by failing to exercise due diligence. There is nothing more in this case. OP is certainly a service provider providing housing service by sale of ready built floor to complainant & Consumer.

We hold OP’s guilty of deficiency in getting the deviations done in violation of sanction plans, or got it compounded before sale. The complainant has suffered.

The complainant has spent charges applicable to the purpose for purpose of de-sealing or regularization of extended area, as per law, which he has in any case to bear in case he is enjoying extra coverage. However, we award a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs on OP’s for deficiency in selling the third floor, without showing its booking for deviation on 3^rd floor. We apportion the liability on 50:50 basis. Thus, OP will pay only Rs.2.5 lakhs to the complainant for this deficiency.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 06.06.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)

 MEMBER