Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/250/2021

Sovia R.J. Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar adv

21 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	250/2021
Date of Institution	:	15.04.2021
Date of Decision	:	21.04.2022

 

                     

            

 

1.  SOVIA R.J. SINGH W/O RAVINDERJIT SINGH, CHITKARA EDUCATIONAL TRUST.. 162-163, MADHYA MARG, SECTOR 9-C, CHANDIGARH.

2   RAVINDERJIT SINGH S/O RAJINDER SINGH, FLAT NO, N-001, PARKWOOD GLADE SECTOR 116, KHARAR LANDRAN ROAD, MOHALI.

….Complainants

VERSUS

1.  PARKWOOD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1001, HEMKUNT CHAMBER, 89, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

2.  HARPREET SINGH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARKWOOD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE at 1101, HEMKUNT CHAMBER, 89, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019.

3.  DAKSHDEEP SINGH, DIRECTOR, PARKWOOD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE at 1101, HEMKUNT CHAMBER, 89, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019.

 

Email id. mail@parkwoodgroup.in

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant
	OPs exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainants are that they applied for allotment of flat in the project of the OPs namely “Parkwood Glade” situated at Kharar Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab. The basic price of the flat was Rs.36.85 lakhs which were deposited by the complainants from time to time as demanded by the OPs. Thereafter, the Flat Buyers Agreement was executed on 21.03.2011 and as per the agreement, the OPs have to develop and deliver the flat complete in all respects on or before 30.09.2011 with a further grace period of 90 days and the last date for handing over the possession of the flat, complete in all respects, including the grace period was 30.12.2011.  The OPs delivered the possession of the flat on 13.03.2012.   They were shocked to receive the letter dated 13.03.2012 whereby the OPs demanded the amount of Rs.1,43,000/- on account of difference of the increased area from 1675 sq. ft. to 1740 sq. ft. i.e. 65 sq. ft.  which was opposed by the complainants by writing a letter dated 20.03.2012/21.03.2012 by stating therein that the structure of the Tower-N was complete at time of boking and the interior work was pending and the question of increase in super area does not arise at all, once the structure of the flat was complete and the super area was mentioned in all the relevant documents executed between the parties. The complainants also demanded the delayed compensation from the OPs as per the agreement and also requested for issuance of revised statement of account. It has further been averred that instead of sending the revised statement of account, the OPs sent reminder dated 27.06.2012 requiring the complainant to take the possession of the flat by clearing the dues and further demanded the interest.  Left with no other alternative, the complainants paid the final balance of Rs.3,93,759/- to the OPs on 31.07.2012 against receipt dated 03.08.2012. It has further been averred that despite receipt of the final payment, the OPs handed over the actual physical possession of the flat on 19.09.2012 which clearly shows that the flat was not ready till 18.09.2012 and as such they are entitled for compensation w.e.f. 30.12.2011 till 18.09.2012. It has further been averred that they paid the maintenance charges for few months to the OPs but on seeing no maintenance work being carried out by the OPs despite repeated requests, they stopped paying the same w.e.f. 30.09.2015 to 28.02.2021 and as such the OPs sent a letter dated 03.03.2021 requiring the complainants to pay Rs.3,82,468.77 P as maintenance charges along with interest. It has further been averred that due to non-providing the facilities as agreed at the time of executing the agreement, the OPs stated that they would not demand the earlier disputed maintenance charges w.e.f. 2015 but they demanded the maintenance charges w.e.f. 2020 which the complainants deposited on 15.06.2020 but they were surprised to note that the amount of Rs.9194/- was adjusted by the OPs towards the disputed maintenance amount for the year 2015. It has further been averred that the OPs have failed to provide the proper parking facilities as there is only single way for the parking which is used for both entry as well as exist.  It has further been averred that the OPs have failed to get rectified the problem of seepage in their flat despite repeated requests and finding no other alternative, they got the same rectified from Berger Company by paying Rs.2,14,551/-. It has further been averred that the Residents Welfare Associate have also made a complaint against the OPs to the SSP Mohali.  It has further been averred that the OPs have failed to construct the swimming pool even till today as the same was promised by them at the time of booking of the flat.  It has further been averred that there is no development and maintenance the site and there are no basic amenities as promised. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.     Notice sent for the service of OP No.1 was received back with the report of refusal. Since refusal was good service, and none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 on the date fixed, therefore vide order dated 5.06.2021, it was proceeded against exparte. 
3.     Despite due service through registered post, OPs No.2 & 3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.10.2021.
4.     We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
5.     A perusal of the documentary evidence on record shows that the complainants were handed over the possession of the property in question by the OPs in the year 2012.  As per terms and conditions of the Maintenance Agreement dated 29.07.2012 (Annexure C-10) executed between the complainants and the OP-Company, the complainants were bound to pay the maintenance charges to the OPs. Besides this, the complainants never filed any complaint regarding the charging of the maintenance charges by the OPs before any competent authority till the filing of the present complaint and rather preferred to keep silence for such a long period. The perusal of the record further shows that the amount towards the excessive area, was paid by the complainants under protest in July, 2012 and as such the cause of action, if any, arose to the complainants on very particular date but no such complaint has been filed by the complainants in any appropriate court of law. As per the provisions of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a complaint can be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen which in the present complaint has expired in the way back. Moreover, the complainants have failed to give any sufficient cause for not filing the present complaint within the limitation period of two years as prescribed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
6.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed being barred by time. Hence, the complaint is dismissed being barred by time, with no order as to costs. 
7.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 21/04/2022
	Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(S.K.SARDANA) MEMBER