Delhi

New Delhi

CC/334/2011

Suneet Shukla - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Tanaja Developers Infrastructure - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 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/334/11                                                                                                                                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Suneet Shukla,

Through Mrs. Rama Shikla, Attorney,

W/o Mr. S.N Shukla,

R/o 1093, Rani Bagh, Shakubasti, Delhi-34

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001

                                         ……..OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

 

The facts of complaint are that complainant on 26.08.08 got booking of flat no.Z1-0904, TDI City, Sonipat, transfered in her name from original person, who had already deposited Rs.9,77,232/.

She thereafter paid till 29.09.10, further sum of Rs.4,62,231/-. The total payments thus made amounted to Rs.14,39,463/-. Thereafter, also the OP demanded various payments including EDC etc, and informed the complainant that construction was in full swing, as stated in Para10-14 of the complaint, but complainant on visit to site found that no construction had ever started despite proclamation that construction was in full swing. In the circumstances, OP issued a legal notice demanding the deposit with interest @ 18% per annum and filled this complaint in 2011.

The OP appeared and sought time for reply and in the meantime, the matter proceeded for settlement through mediation. As a result of efforts of mediation a settlement was reached on 9.3.12, it was agreed that due to change of layout plan, the flat originally allotted to complainant is to be converted into Pent house 3BHK, Sky Villa with saleable area of 2450 sq. ft. and new flat on 9^th Floor of Kingsbury Apartment at BSP of Rs.1,765/- Sq. ft. with total cost of Rs.54,18,175/- as per lay out plan Annexure ‘A’ being a construction linked plan “KFL-B” details, as per Annexure “B” to the agreement was settled. Certain other terms were also settled which are on record as per settlement of mediation centre, and complainant had to withdraw the case after signing of Buyer’s agreement by the parties on 10.04.12.

The builder buyer agreement was signed on 10.04.12. The complainant has moved an application dated 08.01.15, stating that the possession of the flat was handed over on 24.04.14, much beyond the schedule given for possession and even demand was varied. It is alleged that OP has arbitrarily and unlawfully charged a sum of Rs.80,268/- as refurbishment charges which was not part of settlement at mediation. By this application, she seeks refund of this amount along with damages for delay in handing over possession, mental agony & harassment.

 The OP has not filed ant reply, but has orally stated that refurbishment charges will be adjusted against future maintenance charges and matter has lingered so far.

We have considered the mediation settlement on 09.03.12. Its highlights are

1. Basic sale price of Rs.1,765/- per sq. ft. for a 3 BHK Sky Villa with saleable area of 2450 sq. ft. on 9th Floor.
2. Total cost of Rs.54,18,175/- as per lay out plan annexure A and construction linked plan KFL-B as per Annexure “B” to the settlement agreement.
3. Complainant to pay all due of Rs.13,61,118/ till 09.03.12 in 3 equal installments.
4. Remaining payment as per Annexure B
5. Buyer’s agreement to be executed on 10.04.12 or before
6. In case of variation in area of penthouse, the final value should be on Rs.1,765/- sq. ft.
7. The complainant to withdraw the case on signing of agreement.

It is alleged that OP issued a demand letter of 02.08.13, stating that (a) area of flat was increased from 2450 sq.ft to 2833 sq. ft. (b) On visit to site she found that sky villa was not yet constructed, and that it was not likely to be ready on promised date on 01.09.13. She demanded details of Villa. The facts were not supplied, and rather she received a fresh demand of Rs.69,49,038/- against earlier demand of Rs.54,18,175/- for increased area.

It is alleged that on 24.02.04, the promise of sky villa as agreed was violated and she was asked to accept a duplex flat, as sky villa was not made and a discount of Rs.2 lakhs was made. On 05.04.14, a final statement of account shows of Rs.86,4481/-.

We have considered the entire matter dispassionately and find that consumer has been taken for a ride by OP for the following reasons:

1. From the original area of 1625 sq. ft. booked in 2006, the area has gone to 2450 sq. ft.
2. The cost of Rs.86,448.21/- is charged despite mediation settlement of Rs.54,00,000/-.
3. She has no choice but to accept the increased area and arrange extra money.
4. The promised sky villa is reduced to ordinary duplex flat.
5. The agreement between the parties executed shows exclusive terrace rights only for sky villas. Thus, she has no exclusive terrace rights and OP can hire or lease it for antenna etc.

To OP its refurbishment charges of Rs.80,268/- are claimed before giving actual possession. The same are not provided in the mediation settlement.

The upstart of above discussion is that OP has vitiated the sanctity of agreement in Mediation proceedings, and has gone to the extent of increasing area, type of accommodation, delay of 2 years, demanding refurbishment charge of Rs.80,268/- without basis and increasing the cost of Rs.54 lakhs to Rs.86 lakhs on unbearable escalation, and reduced the value of terrace.

In our considered view, since Mediation settlement has been breached, complainant too is not bound and is entitled to compensation for various deficiencies mentioned above. In the circumstances, we direct OP to

1. Return Rs.80,286/- refurbishment charges with interest of 9% from date of collection till payment.
2. Pay Rs.1.5 lakhs as compensation for various deficiencies after the mediation settled by breaching its sanctity and litigation expenses.

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 19.05.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER