Haryana

Karnal

CC/518/2020

Smt. Gayatri Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parsvnath Developers Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Jindal

22 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 518 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.18.11.2020

                                                        Date of Decision: 22.09.2023

 

Smt. Gayatri Devi wife of Shri Kuldeep Singh son of Shri Sube Singh, resident of village Kutail, District Karnal now resident of house no.A-235, Parsvnath City, sector-35, Karnal.

 

                                                                …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Parsvnath Developers Ltd., registered office at Parsvnath Metro Tower, near Shahdra Metro Station, Delhi 110032 through its Branch Office situated at Parsvnath City, Sector-35, Karnal, District Karnal through its authorized signatory.

 

2. District Town Planner, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Kartik Jindal, counsel for complainant.

                    OP no.1 expate (vide order Dt.21.04.2022

                    OP no.2 exparte (vide order Dt.11.01.2021.

 

                    (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

ORDER:  

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP no.1 developed a residential colony called in the name of Parsvnath City, Sector-35, Karnal. Originally, one Shri Kapil Dhawan son of Lachhman Dass Dhawan had booked a plot no.A-235, in the project of the OP no.1. OP no.1 executed a Conveyance Deed/Sale Deed no.1496/1 dated 20.05.2014 in favour of Kapil Dhawan. OP no.1 also issued No Dues letter qua the abovesaid plot on 19.05.2014 in favour of Kapil Dhawan. Lateron, the complainant purchased the said plot from Shri said Kapil Dhawan for a sum of Rs.27,50,000/-, vide sale deed bearing vasika no.5527/1 dated 07.11.2016. OP no.1 also offered a certificate of possession of the abovesaid plot in favour of said Kapil Dhawan on dated 09.11.2013 as possession of the plot was taken over on 20.02.2017 by the complainant from the OP no.1.

2.             It is further averred that complainant intended to raise the construction over the abovesaid plot for her own residence. Complainant engaged Ar. Varun Dutt (Architect). The said Architect applied for the approval of building plans under self-certificate policy implemented from 01.11.2012. OP no.2 issued a memo no.605 dated 02.03.2017 which was addressed to the abovesaid Architect regarding the approval of building plan of the plot in question. As per the due procedure of the law, the building was constructed by the complainant without any violation. The complainant contacted the Architect for getting the occupation certificate in respect of the abovesaid building. As per the OP no.2, the application for occupation certificate is to be submitted online through approved Architect. In this regard, complainant is running from pillar to post for the last one year and she came to know that the OP no.1 without getting the changed site plan approved, changed the plot number unilaterally and till today, OP no.1 has not intimated to the complainant regarding the changed of plot numbers. A written complaint was moved to the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana on 27.08.2019 by mentioning that the OP no.2 is colluded with the OP no.1 and without approval of the site plan, they have changed the plot number. A similar complaint was also made to OP no.2 on 22.10.2019 by the complainant as well as other allottee. Due to this reason, complainant is unable to get occupation certificate from the OP no.2 and she is suffering mentally as well as financially. OP no.1 also submitted a reply on 06.09.2019 to the OP no.2 on the complaint moved by the complainant and other allottee and mentioning therein that their layout plan is under process of approval only for additional license. The layout of 50.64 acres stand already approved.

3.             It is further pleaded that now the grievances of the complainant is that the OP no.2 is not accepting the Online Occupation Certificate application through approved Architect of the building raised on plot in question on the ground that the plots number have been changed by the OP no.1 and A-235 is not owned and possessed by her. OP no.1 as per approved site plan firstly ear-marked the plot number A-219 to A-241. Lateron, they added one number A-226. Due to this reason, the abovesaid problem occurred and OP no.2 is not accepting the online occupation certificate application qua the abovesaid building. The electricity connection was also issued by the OP no.1 through its service provider to the complainant at the site and the DPC certificate was also issued by the OP no.2. Due to non-acceptance of the abovesaid application, complainant is suffering financial loss. As per policy, DTP would impose a penalty due to the non-getting of occupation certificate. Now both the OPs are colluded with each other and harassing and humiliating the complainant unnecessarily by not accepting the online application. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to accept the online occupation certificate of application plot (now constructed house) no.235,  to issue the occupation certificate, to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of financial loss suffered by complainant, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing  mental agony and harassment and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.             On notice, OPs did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide orders dated 21.04.2022 and 11.01.2021 respectively of the Commission.

 5.            Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of letter dated 12.06.2014 Ex.C1, copy of sale deed no.1496/1 dated 20.05.2014 Ex.C2, copy of sale deed no.5527 dated 07.11.2016 Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 09.11.2013 Ex.C4, copy of possession certificate Ex.C5, copy of site plan Ex.C6, copy of letter dated 30.04.2014 Ex.C7, copy of letter dated 02.03.2017 Ex.C8, copy of calculation of electricity supply charges Ex.C9, copy of applications  dated 27.08.2019, 22.10.2019 Ex.C10 and Ex.C11, copy of letter dated 06.09.2019 Ex.C12, copy of site plan Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 13.06.2013 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that initially the plot in question was allotted to one Shri Kapil Dhawan in the project of the OP and thereafter complainant purchased the said plot from Shri Kapil Dhawan. The possession of the plot was taken over on 20.02.2017 by the complainant from the OP no.1. He further argued that complainant intended to raise the construction over the abovesaid plot for that complainant contacted the Architect for getting the occupation certificate in respect of the abovesaid building but till today no occupation certificate issued by the OPs despite various applications and requests made by the complainant and other allottee.  Now the grievances of the complainant is that the OP no.2 is not accepting the Online Occupation Certificate application through approved Architect of the building raised on plot in question on the ground that the plots number have been changed by the OP no.1 and A-235 is not owned and possessed by him. OP no.1 as per approved site plan firstly ear-marked the plot number A-219 to A-241. Lateron, they added one number A-226. Due to this reason, the abovesaid problem occurred. Due to this reason, OP no.2 is not accepting the online occupation certificate application qua the abovesaid building. The electricity connection was also issued by the OP no.1 through its service provider to the complainant at the site and the DPC certificate was also issued by the OP no.2. Due to non-acceptance of the abovesaid application, complainant is suffering financial loss. As per policy, DTP would impose a penalty due to the non-getting of occupation certificate.

8.             The onus to prove her case was relied upon the complainant. To prove her case complainant has placed on file her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of letter dated 12.06.2014 Ex.C1, copy of sale deed no.1496/1 dated 20.05.2014 Ex.C2, copy of sale deed no.5527 dated 07.11.2016 Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 09.11.2013 Ex.C4, copy of possession certificate Ex.C5, copy of site plan Ex.C6, copy of letter dated 30.04.2014 Ex.C7, copy of letter dated 02.03.2017 Ex.C8, copy of calculation of electricity supply charges Ex.C9, copy of applications  dated 27.08.2019 and 22.10.2019 Ex.C10 and Ex.C11, copy of letter dated 06.09.2019 Ex.C12, copy of site plan Ex.C13. From the abovesaid letters/demands, it has been proved that complainant is owner in possession of the property in question and nothing is due against the complainant. The grievance of the complainant only is that OP no.2 is not accepting the online occupation certificate on the ground that the plots numbers have been changed by OP no.1. If the OP no.1 has changed the plots numbers for that complainant cannot be blamed. It was the duty of the OP no.1 to allot the new number on changing the old number of the plot in question.

9.             To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Hence the evidence produced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Hence, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, while not issuing the occupation certificate.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to allot the alternate/new number of plot in question and after that OP no.2 is directed to accept the online occupation certificate application of plot in question and issued the occupation certificate in favour of the complainant. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.40000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:22.09.2023                    

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                        Member                            Member