Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/26/2015

Gajendra Jain S/o Shri Chand Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narayan Bilders and Developers - Opp.Party(s)

Jitendra Sharma

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 26/2015

 

Gajendra Jain s/o Shrichand Jain, r/o Flat No.9 Second floor, Jagdish Vihar II, Prem Nagar, Nandpuri Mode,Jagatpura, Jaipur.

 

Vs.

 

Narayan Builders & Developers through its authorized signatory, regd.office at B-14, Heera Nagar, Ganga Jamuna Crossing, Shiprapath Corner, Mansarover Jaipur side office at SEZ Road, Opp. Muhana Terminal Market,Sanganer,Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 23.11.2015

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr.Liyakat Ali- Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal-Member

 

Mr.Jitendra Sharma counsel for the complainant

None present for the respondents

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This complaint has been filed alleging deficiency of the opposite party in demanding excess cost of the flat which was agreed under the agreement executed at the time of booking.

 

The complainant had booked a Flat No. 807 having built up area of 1095.31 sq.ft. The basic price of the flat was Rs.16,99,103/- as mentioned in the agreement clause 2.1. Schedule Anx. D attached to the agreement further specifies the total cost at Rs.18,74,102.74 inclusive of car parking charges of Rs. 1.75 lakhs. The total super built up area of the flat was 1369.14 sq.ft. The complainant had booked the flat by paying advance of Rs. 2 lakhs vide receipt no. 2855. He was further required to deposit Rs. 1,74,285/- on 15.3.2011. The complainant further states that on further payment he was issued a receipt by Urbana Jewels. On enquiry he was told that this project has been re-named as Urbana Jewels and a supplemental agreement was also executed wherein it was mentioned that consequent to an internal re-structuring the project has been handed over to Urbana Jewels who will fulfill all the commitments in pursuance of the agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party. It was further

3

 

stated in the supplemental agreement that name of the firm will continue as Narayan Builders & Developers. The complainant was not handed over the possession as scheduled. The dispute arose when he received a letter dated 5.5.2014 from the opposite party demanding Rs.7,39,492/- in addition to the amount of Rs.17,96,747/- already paid by the complainant.The complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service.

 

Notices were issued to the opposite party but despite notices the opposite party has not put up appearance before this Commission.

 

We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the documents submitted by the complainant.

 

Ex. Anx. 1 is the agreement originally executed between the complainant and the opposite party under which a flat having built up area 1095.31 sq.ft. was to be allotted to the complainant on payment of Rs. 16,99,103/-. A schecule Anx.D attached to this agreement shows the total cost of flat as Rs.18,74,102.74 including car parking charges.

 

The amount of Rs. 17,96,747/- has already been paid by

4

 

the complainant which is not in dispute as the letter Anx.5 of the opposite party confirms receipt of this payment. The complainant has been demanded Rs. 7,35,777/- details of which were attached to the letter dated 5.5.2014 of the opposite party in which built up area of the flat has been shown as 1115 sq.ft. instead of 1095.31 sq.ft. and super built up area of the flat has been shown as 1486.68 sq.ft. instead of 1369.14 sq.ft. Thus there is increase in the super built up area and built up area of the flat. It is clear that on construction the super built up area and built up area has been increased but basic cost of the flat that has been shown in the schecule comes to Rs. 18,44,917/-. In this schedule Rs. 1,75,000/- has been charged as parking, Rs.1,53,262/- as external development charges, Rs.22,300/- as lease money, Rs. 67,416/- as club membership and one time maintenance security at Rs. 69,690/- and Rs. 2,77,990/- R.55,752/- as holding charges from 13.9.2013 compensation on delayed payment as Rs.27,876/- has been charged as interest on delayed payment whereas schecule Anx. D attached to the agreement shows the cost of flat at Rs.18,74,102.74 inclusive of the car parking charges. According to this schecule there were no external development charges, no club membership charges, no maintenance security charges and no preferred location charges.Thus, the complainant alleges that the opposite

5

 

party has increased the cost of the flat adding the amount which were not originally part of the agreement between the parties.

 

After perusal of record we have observed that the complainant is now getting total super built up area of 1486.68 sq.ft. As per agreement the cost of per sq.ft. is Rs. 1551.25 and total cost of revised area comes to Rs.23,06212/- ( 1486.68 x 1551.25 ) excluding parking charges but the opposite party while calculating the cost for total revised area has shown Rs.1844790/- ( 1486.18 x 1241 ). Thus Rs. 310.25 has been reduced. We do not think that rate was revised or complainant was given concession of Rs. 310.25 per sq.ft. What we assume is that cost of Rs. 1551.25 per sq.ft. included cost of external development charges, lease money, club membership, maintenance security deposit and service tax etc. We believe these charges have been bifurcated and shown separately on each count and there is no breach of agreement or extra charges by the opposite party. The complainant is liable to pay Rs.23,06,212/- plus parking charges which comes to Rs.24,81,212/- while opposite party as per Anx.7 has demanded only Rs.23,72,911/- ( Rs. 19,39,285/- already paid plus Rs.7,39,492/- demand raised vide letter dated 5.5.2014)

 

6

 

difference of Rs.305866/- seems to be on account of interest for delayed payment.

 

As regards the delayed payment interest the complainant was offered possession on 28.10.2013. The complainant had not paid the amount on time. The receipt of payment of Rs.22,300/- is of 23.5.2014. Complainant has not filed any details of amount paid by him as per schedule of payment.

 

The complainant has cited before us judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal No. 2544/2010 Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. And 1994 SCC (1) 243 Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta. In these judgments it has been held that non-delivery of possession as agreed will amount to deficiency of service by the builder.

 

In the above judgments the builders have been held responsible for deficiency but in the present case the complainant has attempted to mislead the Commission by filing a false complaint. He concealed the facts how the cost per sq.ft.was calculated at Rs. 1241/- per sq.ft.instead of Rs.1551.25 as agreed between the parties. He has not come

7

 

with the fact of additional area being allotted to him and delayed payment.

 

However, we are restraining ourselves from imposing cost on complainant as opposite party has not put up appearance. The complaint is dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Member Presiding Member

nm