Haryana

StateCommission

A/743/2016

RAJENDER SHRIDHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

OMAXE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SAHIL KHUNGER

29 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.743 of 2016

Date of the Institution:12.08.2016

Date of Decision:29.11.2017

 

Rajender Shridhar son of Sh. Hari Chand Shridhar, R/o B-28, 1^st Floor, Sharadpuri, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi at present R/o House No.1, New Colony Extension, Palwal, Tehsil & District Palwal.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

1.      The Manager, Omaxe Ltd., Omaxe City, Palwal, District Palwal.

2.      The General Manager, Omaxe Ltd., Omaxe House-7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

3.      The Manager, Jain Estate Services, Kothi No.20, Near Omaxe Main Gate, Omaxe City, Palwal, District Palwal.

                                                                             .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Vinod Khunger, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Bhupender Singh, proxy counsel for Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Rajender Shridhar, complainant is in appeal for modification of the of the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Palwal, vide Order dated 29.06.2016, whereby OPs have been directed as under:-

“(i) To handover the physical possession and delivery of the plot bearing No.PPS/759 measuring 177.01 Sq. yards situated in Omaxe City, Palwal and get the sale deed / conveyance deed executed in favour of the complainant and to refund the cost of decreased area of the land/plot to the tune of Rs.84,224/- and at the same time not to charge enhanced EDC and IDC and returned the EDC and IDC already received by the opposite parties to the tune Rs.59,652/-. The opposite parties will return to the complainant a total amount to the tune of Rs.1,43,876/- (Rs.84,224/- refund of cost of decreased are +59,652/- as EDC and IDC already charged) The EDC and IDC will depend upon the outcome of CWP 5835 of 2013 pending before Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.

(ii).     To pay compensation for mental  tension, agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

(iii).    Opposite parties No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- in the account of District Consumer Forum’s Welfare Fund.

2.      Briefly stated, according to the complainant he purchased a residential plot bearing No.PPS/759 measuring 199.13 Sq Yards in Omaxe City,  Palwal from one Sh. Mehar Chand through OP No.3 and paid an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- to Mehar Chand on 21.10.2011 which was duly signed by OPs and acknowledged by OPs No.1 & 2 have not objections pertains to purchase residential plot in question. Though a request from allotment rights were assigned to the complainant from original allottee i.e. Mehar Chand which was duly signed by the complainant and authorized signatory on behalf of OPs 1 & 2 and also by OP No.3. According to the complainant OPs and their agent made  several tall claims from the date of booking of the plot in question that the possession of the plot will be delivered within three months after the developing the said area. The cost of the plot as agreed was Rs.15,17,617/- except the amount paid by the complainant to original allottee and  said above mentioned amount of Rs.15,17,617/- was paid to the OPs No.1 & 2 was duly acknowledged through a receipt dated 19.11.2011. Actually the cost of the plot was of 199.13 Sq. Yards including all Rs.22,10,430/- and out of Rs.22,10,430/- the complainant paid Rs.20,67,617/- but strange enough OPs regularly raised demanding of the balance and remaining amount even after decreasing the area to 177.01 Sq yards. The rate of plot at the time of agreement was Rs.9575/- per Sq yards and the area of plot which is now being offer is 177.01 Sq yards. So the total cost of the plot in question is 9575x177.01=16,94,870.75. The  complainant made a lot of request to deliver the possession of the plot in question as per  terms and conditions of agreement but OPs No.1 & 2 went on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and did not deliver the possession of the plot.  Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of his  grievance.

3.      OPs 1 & 2 in their reply pleaded that the letter dated 25.08.2015 which shows that the possession was not handed over to the complainant till 25.08.2015 because this letter is for offer of possession. The complainant placed on record the statement of account there is a demand of enhanced External and Internal Development charges to the tune of Rs.59,652/- and also there is a demand of utility room cost to the tune of Rs.6195/-. Further in this letter the amount which have not been refunded to the complainant for the decreased area of the plot in question have been shown to be Rs.84,224.28/-. This letter was also self attested by the complainant. Letter dated 25.08.2015 issued to the complainant which shows that till 25.08.2015 no delivery of possession of the plot in question was made to the complainant. Complaint is not supported by any affidavit so it is not maintainable and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. OP-3 pleaded that the dispute, if any, is there it is between complainant and OPs No.1 & 2 and he has not led any further evidence and prayed that his name have been dragged into the complaint unnecessarily and he should be compensated for it.  However, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint against OPs 1 & 2 by awarding the aforesaid amount.

4.      Considering this amount as inadequate, the complainant has come in Appeal before us for the enhancement of the same.  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The complainant has stressed in his appeal two main grounds i.e. (i) the possession of the plot in question was delivered to him after a delay of five years during which period he had to reside in a rented accommodation and the rental paid by him for those premises would be paid by the OPs, (ii) the area of the plot offered to him at the time of allotment was much more than the area offering plot actually handed over to him, meaning thereby that the respondents have decreased the area of plot physical possession whereof has been actually delivered. The respondents justifying delay in the delivery of possession have referred to the pendency of the Writ Petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and that the assigning of rights from the original allottee to the complainant certainly took time for a considerable long period. That is why the learned District Forum has adequately compensated the complainant even through there was no stipulation by way of terms and conditions in the agreement that the possession was to be delivered within a maximum period mentioned in the management.

5.      Regarding the decreased in the area of the plot possession whereof has actually been delivered to the complainant, the learned District Forum has correctly appreciated the cost of the decreased area while granting the relief to him. This decreased in area was necessitated due to the design and specifications of the plot actually charged out and that is why the proportionate reduction in the price of the plot was duly granted  to the complainant. OPs have placed reliance on clause 5 of the Application, which inter alia provided that the Applicant had examined the tentative plans, design and specifications as agreed and the Company may affect such variations, modifications as may be necessary or it may deem appropriate and fit in the best interest of the Project. The necessary changes/alterations may involve change in position/location including change in dimensions area or number etc. of the apartment. Therefore, the grievance of the complainant has rightly and adequately redressed. Consequently, we fully agree and endorse the detailed and well considered Order passed by the learned District Forum and feels satisfied that the relief granted adequately meets the ends of justice and no modification in the same is called for. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

November 29th, 2017

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.