Haryana

StateCommission

A/1290/2016

SATPARKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

OMAXE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.BADHRAN

22 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.           1290 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       28.12.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         22.09.2017

 

 

Sat Parkash Gautam son of Om Parkash Gautam, resident of 301, Cyber Port Tower, 3^rd Floor, Omaxe Heights, Sonepat.

                             Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s Omaxe Limited (formerly known as Omaxe Construction Limited), Road Office at Omaxe House 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi -110019 through its Authorized Signatory Ajay Gulia.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

 

Argued by:                    Shri R.S. Badhran, Advocate for the appellant

                             Shri Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated November 03^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed was dismissed. 

2.      Sat Parkash Gautam-complainant purchased residential unit bearing No.301, admeasuring super area approximately 1231 sq. feet situated on third floor, Cyber Port Tower, Omaxe Heights, Sonepat for a sum of Rs.14,24,943/- vide conveyance deed dated May 09^th, 2014.  After taking over the possession, the complainant found that area of the residential unit was 1139.88 sq. ft. as per the report dated February 12^th, 2016 of Dhankar Designer, Architect.  The grievance of the complainant was that since the factual area of the site was 1139.88 sq. ft. and the payment was made of the super area admeasuring 1231 sq. ft., so, Omaxe Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘builder’) be directed to pay the balance amount of the area, that is, 91.12 sq. ft. (1231-1139.88). 

3.      The only evidence led by the complainant was the report (Annexure 1) of Dhankar Designer, Architect.  The relevant portion of the report is reproduced as under:-

          “As per measurements actual Carpet Area details on site:-

          Built up Area       :         81.13 sq mt 873.28 sq. ft.

          Balcony’s Area   :         13.60 sq. mt 146.40 sq. ft.

          Common Passage:     33.50/3, 11.16 sq. mt. 120.20 sq. ft

          Super Area:- Built up Area + Balcony Area + Common Area

                                      =       1139.88 sq. ft.”

 

4.      The super area of the unit was approximately 1231 sq. ft as per the Conveyance Deed (Annexure R-2) executed between the complainant and the builder.   Dhankar Designer, Architect prepared the report by calculating built up area, balcony’s area and common passage, which comes to 1139.88 sq. ft.  In the conveyance deed itself, it is mentioned that super area includes covered area of the unit plus proportionate area under the corridors, passages, staircase, electric sub station, projections, architectural features, lift wells, lift rooms, mumty, circulation areas, refuge areas, overhead and underground tanks, boundary walls and built up area under the recreation and of other facilities etc.  These items have not been taken into consideration by the Dhankar Designer while submitting the report.  So, from the report of Dhankar Designer, it cannot be said that there was difference between actual and the super area of the unit, which was sold by the builder as per the conveyance deed.   In this view of matter, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

 

Announced 22.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K