CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.445/2014
MS SONAL MISRA
K-3/73 1ST FLOOR, DLF PHASE-2,
GURGAON-122002
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
MR. ANIL GOEL, CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
PIYUSH COLONISERS LTD.(PIYUSH GROUP)
A-16/B-1 MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MAIN MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:05.09.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
It is an admitted fact that complainant booked a flat vide application dated 14.09.12 measuring 556.550 sq. ft. at BSP of Rs.2490/- per sq. ft. in the project of OP namely “Piyush Square Studio Apartment” at Bhiwadi and paid total amount of Rs.11,98,098/- to OP.
The case of complainant is that total cost of the flat was Rs.13,85,810/- and she has deposited more than 85% of the total cost of the flat. It is stated that after allotment letter, it is obligatory on the part of Builder to execute Buyer’s agreement which is signed by both the parties containing the terms and conditions of the allotment and also the buyer is at liberty to exit from the project before signing of the Buyer’s agreement if he finds any clause which is not favourable to him.
It is stated that in the allotment letter dated 23.05.13, OP has specifically stated that Buyer’s agreement containing detailed terms and conditions will be sent to her shortly in duplicate for her signature. In October 2013, complainant sent email reminding the OP about sending of the Buyer’s agreement and OP vide email dated 16.10.13 informed complainant that her Buyer’s agreement is already under process and will be sent soon. However, the same was not sent hence complainant was constrained to send letters dated 19.02.14 and 03.06.14 by speed post. Instead of sending the Buyer’s agreement, OP sent a letter dated 02.09.14 to complainant thereby informing her that the construction is in progress and they have got the area re-measured with the assistance of their architect and engineering staff and the area of the unit allotted to complainant has been increased from 556.550 sq ft. to 662.400 sq. ft. thereby showing an increase of 105.850 sq. ft. On the same day i.e. 02.09.2014, vide another letter, complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.5,87,558/- towards the increased area.
It is stated that in fact complainant was kept in the dark and Buyer’s agreement was not signed willfully even after 21 months of receiving over 85% of the total cost of the flat. OP cannot increase the area of the flat unilaterally and rather OP is threatening complainant to accept their unilateral decisions and is making the demand towards increased area. Ultimately complainant was constrained to send a notice on 10.09.14 to OP about the deficiency in service, however, no reply was received from OP. Ultimately this complaint has been filed and it is prayed that OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.11,98,098/- alongwith interest and litigation expenses.
OP in the reply took the plea that the earlier area of the flat was tentative and OP was within its right to increase the area as per sanctioned plan obtained from the concerned authorities. As per increased area, complainant is bound to pay the amount for increased area as per terms and conditions in the application form. Complainant has committed default by not complying with the letter dated 02.09.14 and has not deposited Rs.5,87,518/-. It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
It is significant to note that the allotment was made vide allotment letter dated 23.05.13 specifically mentioning the area of the flat approximately 556.550 sq. ft. and also stated that Buyer’s agreement containing detailed terms and conditions will be sent shortly. Even complainant sent an email reminding the OP about sending of the Buyer’s agreement and OP vide email dated 16.10.13 informed complainant that her Buyer’s agreement is already under process and will be sent soon. Despite of that the Buyer’s agreement was not sent. Complainant was constrained to send letters by speed post dated 19.02.14 and 03.06.14, however, no action was taken. Even after 20 months of sending of allotment letter, the buyer’s agreement was not got executed. There was no question of unilateral increase of area. One can understand slight increase in the area but not to the extent of 105.850 sq. ft. By not sending the Buyer’s agreement for such a long time, OP has committed deficiency in service and complainant was within her right to seek refund of the amount.
OP is directed to refund Rs.11,98,098/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from June 2013. OP is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
