Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1330/2018

EKNATH PATIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

OMAXE LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

NAMAN GUPTA

02 Nov 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :02.11.2018

Date of Decision : 04.12.2018

COMPLAINT NO.1330/2018

In the matter of:

 

Mr. Eknath Patil,

S/o. Shri Decochand Zandu Patil,

R/o. H.No.98, Sector-2/C,

Saket Nagar, Bhopal,

Madhya Prades-462024.                                                                               …..Complainant

                                                Versus                                   

 

1. Omaxe Ltd.,

Corporate Office : Omaxe House,

7 Local Shopping Centre,

Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

 

2. Goodwill Properties,

C/o. Omaxe Ltd.,

To be disclosed by OP-1.                                          …….Opposite Parties

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The present complaint at the stage of admission is liable to be disposed of on the simple ground that complainant has not filed copy of any builder buyer agreement. The document simply show that on 24.06.12 the complainant filled up registration form for plot of  150 sq. yards and paid Rs.4 lakhs. He was provisionally allotted plot no.61 measuring 169.53 sq. yards in Omaxe Green Meadow City Ext. Bhiwadi, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar, Rajasthan vide letter dated 18.05.16. The said letter clearly indicates that the allotment  was as tentative lay out/ building plan and OP  could effect such variation and modifications in the lay out / building plan as might be necessary or as it might deem appropriate fit in the best interest of the project or as may be done by the any competent authority. The necessary changes / alterations might involve change in position/ location of the unit, change in its dimension or area, number etc.
2. Now the grievance of the complainant is that OP has offered plot of 169.53 se. yards instead of 150 sq. yards booked by him. Another grievance is that the plot offered by OP is of irregular size with all unequal sIdes. The case of the complainant is also that he was under immense shock  as inspite of giving a preferential plot as committed/ assured by OP-1, the plot offered was irregular plot.
3. We  do not  see any condition in the registration form that the complainant was to be given a preferential plot or a rectangular plot.  Rather the provision allotment letter dated 18.05.16 copy of which is at page-34 clearly provides that there could be variation and modification lay out of the building plan, the necessary change/ alteration might involve change in position location of the said unit, change in dimension or area, number etc.
4. The complainant accepted the aforesaid allotment with open eyes. The complainant issued three cheques dated 21.07.16, 25.07.16 and 28.07.16 after receipt of aforesaid  provisional letter meaning thereby that he accepted the terms mentioned in the said provisional letter . Now He can not be heard to say that OP had committed any deficiency. The complaint merits dismissal in limine and is dismissed accordingly.
5. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to record room.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                           (O.P. GUPTA)                                    

MEMBER                                               MEMBER (JUDICIAL)