Delhi

North East

CC/155/2021

Babli Panwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pinki Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

12 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 155/21

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

 

Ms. Babli Panwar

W/o Shri Pramod Panwar

R/o House No. 50, 1^st Floor

Durgapuri Extension

Gali No. 1, Delhi – 110 093                                                                        Complainant

	Versus

Ms. Pinki Gupta

W/o Shri Sunil Gupta

R/o House No. 66,

New Layalpur, Krishna Nagar

Delhi – 110 051                                                                                            Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:                ORDER RESERVED ON:                DATE OF ORDER:

21.10.2021 09.11.2021 12.11.2021

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

             The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The case of the Complainant is that on 11.08.2021, vide registered sale deed, she purchased one residential built-up 1^st floor on the right hand side of property no. 50 (old plot no. 10) Gali no. 1, in the area of village Sikandpur, Durgapuri Extension, near East Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi–110 093 (hereinafter referred to as property in question).  The Complainant purchased the said property from Smt. Pinki Gupta (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party).  The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party has not given the car parking to the Complainant whereas the Opposite Party had given the said facility of car parking to the other purchasers in the same complex.   It is the case of the Complainant that the owners of upper ground and first floor had been provided car parking and in this regard, the Complainant was kept in dark.  It is also alleged in the complaint that in the draft Sale Deed, facility of one car parking and one two wheeler parking was mentioned, but the builder namely Sunil Gupta, i.e. husband of the Opposite Party deleted the said facility of car parking in the actual Sale Deed which was registered by saying that this building has eight flats and car facility is not being provided to anyone. 

2.         We have heard the Complainant and have perused the file.  The grievance of the Complainant is that she was not provided the car parking facility by the Opposite Party on the ground that the said building was having eight flats and the car facility can be provided only in the plot measuring at least 75 sq.yds.  It is an admitted fact that Complainant was well aware of the fact even prior to the registration of the Sale Deed.  It is also an admitted fact that in the draft Sale Deed, the facility of car parking was mentioned, however, the same was deleted/removed prior to the registration of the Sale Deed of the property in question.  In case, there was any doubt/confusion/grievance in the mind of the Complainant, she should not have opted for the purchase of the property in question.  All the said facts and circumstances show that even after knowing the fact that she was not being given the facility of the car parking, she opted for purchase of the property in question.  The ground put forward by the Complainant that car facility has been provided to the other purchasers of the flat in the same complex is not a ground to entertain the complaint of the Complainant. 

3.         Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we do not see any merit in the complaint and hence, cannot be admitted. 

The complaint is dismissed accordingly.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)                                              (Surinder Kumar Sharma)      

       (Member)                                                                         (President)