Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/109/2014

Rishi Raj Kapoor s/o Ratan Mohan Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shiv Shakti Buildsqure Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kamal Chamaria

22 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 109/2014

 

Rishi Raj Kapoor s/o Sh.Ratan Mohan Kapoor r/o E 603, Ashadeep Green Avanew, Near Gyan Vihar Eng.College,Jagatpura,Jaipur.

Vs.

Shiv Shakti Buildsquare Pvt.Ltd., J 17 Nehru Sahakar Marg, Behind IOC Petrol Pump,Jaipur through authorised signatory

 

 

Date of Order 22.7.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr. Liyakat Ali - Member

 

Mr.Jitendra Mitruka counsel for the complainant

Mr. Gunjan Pathak & Mr.Dinesh Kumar counsel for the opposite party

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

1. The complainant had booked a Villa in the “Auric Villas” project of the opposite party on 1.11.2011. The complainant was allotted villa no. 12 and the cost of the villa was Rs. 18,90,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/- for all additional charges. In May 2012 the complainant made a lumpsum payment of Rs. 7,56,355/- and the complainant was offered a special discount of Rs. 63,856/-. Thus, the cost of the villa was reduced to Rs. 18,26,144/-. The opposite party had agreed that some changes or modification in the villa will be carried on as per directions of the complainant and the possession was to be handed over by December 2012. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party did not carry out the necessary changes or modification as agreed by them and his requests and e-mails were not responded instead he was issued a letter Anx. 6 on 5.7.2013 directing him to take the possession of the said villa after paying balance amount of Rs. 3,33,424/-. After receiving this letter the complainant visited the site and wrote back to the opposite party that necessary changes have not been done. The complainant alleges that changes in the construction of staircase has not been done and there were other changes mainly in the toilets of the villa which he pointed out in his e-mail dated August 15,2013. Alongwith

3

 

the letter Anx.6 statement of account was also enclosed requiring the complainant to pay Rs.2,60,440/- as balance towards the cost of the villa and Rs. 72,984/- as JDA charges including Patta and registration charges. The complainant had objected to this amount as it was not agreed upon but the opposite party refused to waive it and another demand Anx.7 dated 7.8.2014 was raised. On 19.9.2014 another demand of Rs. 5,02,338/- was raised vide Anx.8 requiring the complainant to pay Rs. 56,214/- as interest on delayed payment and Rs. 1,12,700/- as possession holding charges. The complainant had prayed that these charges be quashed and the opposite party may be directed to handover the possession. In addition he has also prayed that possession was to be handed over by the end of December 2012 failing which the opposite party was to pay rent @ Rs.5/- per feet of the area of the villa allotted to him which amounts to nearly Rs.8000/- per month and this amount may also be awarded.

 

2. The opposite party submitted their written reply. In the reply they have stated that they had carried out the necessary modification as directed by the complainant. They also submitted that there has been no delay in handing over the possession but the complainant has intentionally not taken the

4

 

possession. Thus, he is liable to interest on the balance amount. During arguments the learned counsel for the opposite party has drawn our attention to the site plan which were approved by the complainant in January 2012 which required some modification in the original plan. The learned counsel argued that as per the agreement, possession was to be given after two years subject to extended period of six months i.e. they were required to handover the possession within 30 months but the complainant had taken time to approve the site plan of changes which delayed the construction. He has further submitted that the opposite party has offered the possession in July 2013 but the complainant had not taken the possession nor paid the due amount. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the complainant had himself agreed that the changes in staircase constructed by the opposite party may not be carried out as demolition of the staircase after construction may affect the building. He has also submitted that Patta charges have to be borne by the complainant as individual patta for each villa will be issued by the JDA in the name of the complainant. Thus, Rs.72,984/- is payable on this account. He also raised the objection of jurisdiction submitting that cost of villa is Rs. 18,90,000/-, thus the complaint should have been presented before the District Forum.

5

 

Both the parties have supported their averments in the form of affidavits also.

 

4. We have heard the arguments of respective counsels and have perused the record.

 

5. As regard the changes in the construction which are agreed to be carried out by the opposite party, we would like to point out that by e-mail dated May 21, 2012 the complainant had agreed that now breaking the constructed staircase will disturb the main structure of the building and he had desired that the staircase constructed be not disturbed. In the same letter he had asked the opposite party to carry out the internal changes in GF and FF toilets and electrical switch board fittings be done according to the drawings. We find that after the complainant was offered the possession in July 2013 he continuously requested the opposite party to carry out these changes but these changes were not carried out. Further during arguments the complainant has not insisted now on the changes to be made in the existing construction. The main point of dispute between the parties is the JDA charges of Rs.72,984/- though the complainant has refuted the argument that patta will be issued in the name of the complainant. He has argued that patta charges

6

 

should be borne by the opposite party as the patta will be issued in the name of the builder by the JDA of the plot where the construction has been done. In this regard we order that in case the patta is issued in the name of the complainant by JDA then necessary patta charges etc. shall be borne by the complainant and shall be paid directly to the JDA. As regards the amount of delayed payment and possession holding charges demanded vide Anx. 8, there is sufficient material on record to show that after July 2013 the complainant had been insisting for the changes and to handover the possession and both the parties exchanged correspondence through e-mails in this regard but ultimately the complainant had to accept the villa as it was constructed. He informed the opposite party vide letter dated July 3,2014 that he will accept the villa but changes in WC at Ground floor and First floor would atleast be made still the opposite party did not pay any heed to his request.

 

6. As regards jurisdiction we find that the complaint has valued on the basis of cost of villa plus Rs.1,50,000/- other charges and the additional demand made, which exceeds Rs.20,00,000/-. Thus, there is no force in this argument.

 

 

7

 

7. In view of this we find that there has been no intentional delay on the part of the complainant to take the possession. Thus, the interest on account of delayed payment or possession holding charges is not justified. Since the site plan for changing was approved in January 2012 i.e. after one year of the booking of the villa though vide letter Anx.4 dated March 1,2012 the opposite party had promised to deliver the possession by the end of December and as per agreement they had offered the possession in July 2013 but villa was not complete and the changes agreed by the opposite party were not carried out and which delayed the possession and the dispute regarding patta charges. The opposite party vide its letter Anx. 3 dated 29.5.2012 had informed the complainant that remaining 5% of the cost i.e. Rs. 91,308/- + additional charges of Rs. 1,50,000/- and service tax will have to be paid by the complainant. Though in this letter JDA charges were to be paid if necessary but the complainant has not been informed of what JDA charges have to be paid. It is only in the case the patta is issued by JDA in the name of the owner (complainant ) that patta charges will have to be paid to the JDA. Thus, in view of this we allow this complaint and order as follows:

 

(i) The demand of Rs.72,984/- made by letter dated 5.7.2013

8

 

will be subject to the condition that patta is issued in the name of complainant by the JDA and actual JDA charges will be payable.

 

(ii) The demand raised by Anx. 8 dated 19.9.2014 with regard to interest on delayed payment and possession holding charges of Rs.56,214/- and Rs. 1,12,700/- respectively is quashed.

 

(iii) The complainant shall make the balance dues immediately to the opposite party and the opposite party will handover the possession to the complainant.

 

(iv) The complainant is entitled to rent as agreed between the parties from 5.7.2013 i.e. the date on which possession was offered but construction was not complete, to 18.11.2014 the date of presentation of complaint.

 

(v) Both the parties shall bear their own costs.

 

(Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

nm