Haryana

StateCommission

A/234/2016

NEERAJ AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TODAY HOMES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

22 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.234 of 2016

Date of the Institution:17.03.2016

Date of Decision: 22.02.2017

Neeraj Aggarwal S/o Sh. Devi Dass Aggarwal permanent resident of 736, SST Nagar, Rajpura Road, Patiala 147001 Ph.0175-2370000, 09814147686.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

Today Homes and infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 8^th Floor, Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director Mr. G.K. Gambhir.

                                                                             …..Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Neeraj Aggarwal, appellant in person.

Mr. S.K. Agnihotri, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

1. Neeraj Aggarwal, complainant is in appeal for enhancement of the amount as awarded vide Order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Gurgaon, whereby OPs have been directed to pay a penalty of @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month for 15 months with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 21.12.2010 till realization alongwith Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation and compensation.
2. Briefly stated, Satish Kumar Setia, predecessor-in-interest of the complainant entered into an agreement to sell a residential unit with the OP on 20.11.2006 and thereafter the complainant got the said booking transferred on 19.09.2007 in his favour. Thereafter, in view of the endorsement dated 19.09.2007 of the agreement to sell the complainant stepped into the shoes of the original allottee Satish Kumar Setia regarding rights and liabilities over the said unit, hence, “Consumer” of the opposite party.  The complainant further alleged that opposite party has wrongly and illegally charged Rs.60,000/- as Preferential Location Charges (PLC) for corner non-park facing floor flat, where as per clause 3 of the agreement this PLC should have been Rs.50,000/- i.e. excess amount of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant also alleged that he was entitled to compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft per month i.e. Rs.1,66,500/- for the delayed period of 18 months from 20.05.2008 to 20.11.2009 and also to interest on the amount of Rs.10,80,000/- on his investment for 18 month’s delay, besides to Rs.2,70,000/- towards rent. Complainant also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards non-construction of parking space and          Rs.4,00,000/- as cost of getting the fittings and fixtures replaced. When the opposite parties declined his request, he served a legal notice upon the opposite party dated 02.03.2010 but of no avail. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance.
3. OP in its written reply has pleaded that the District Forum did not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. On merits, there was no intentional delay in completion of the construction work as due to strike of the labour and the contractor could not complete the construction work by April, 2008. Therefore, the delay in completing the construction work was beyond the control of the OP and as per clause 20 of the agreement the opposite party was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Further, the complainant had taken the possession of the flat on 21.11.2009 and at the time of taking the possession, he has clearly stated that the unit was in satisfactory condition so far as the quality and material of the Unit was concerned he has also given an undertaking that he would not claim or require any change or modification against the OP-company in respect of any item, workmanship, work, facility whatsoever for that reason, the complainant was not required to pay even a single penny towards maintenance charges. Further, the OP has also waived the maintenance charges of the complainant in order to compensate the delay in delivery of possession of the unit, although the delay was beyond the control of the opposite party. The complainant himself alleged that he sent a letter to the opposite party on 11.08.2009 and received the offer of possession letter dated 08.09.2009. The OP also denied that there was any seepage at several parts and the water was dripping out of almost all taps or that electric wires had been kept loose in the stair case posing a risk to life and limb as alleged by the complainant. The opposite parties denied all the allegations of the complainant refuting any deficiency in service on their part. The learned District Forum agreeing with the stand by the OP, allowed the complaint by awarding the aforesaid amount. Considering this amount as inadequate, the complainant has come in Appeal before us for the enhancement of the same. 
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It is evident from the documentary evidence produced  by the OP that Agreement to sell was entered into by the parties on 20.11.2006 regarding the purchase of the dwelling unit situated at A-202 1^st F.F. today,  Blossom-I, Gurgaon. Therefore, the District Forum, Gurgaon possessed the necessary territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under the Consumer Protection Act.  Further, the complainant Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal is not the original allotee / owner of the flat, in question, but he had purchased it from one Satish Kumar Setia, who was the original allottee. Complainant by purchasing the flat stepped into the shoes of the original allotee being a subsequent buyer. Therefore, he is bound by the commitments and terms and conditions agreed by the original allotte. The complainant has categorically admitted by signing the possession certificate that the quality and material used by the OP in the construction of the Flat was to his entire satisfaction. Therefore, he is estopped by his conduct from challenging the same or from claiming any compensation from the OPs. Moreover, regarding the alleged delay in the completion of the construction of the Flat, firstly the OP has rightly pleaded that the delay was beyond its control as there was a strike by the labour; secondly, despite that the OP has adequately compensated the complainant by paying Rs.5/- per sq ft per month for the period of 15 months. Therefore, nothing further remains payable by the OP.
5. So far as the claim of the complainant regarding PLC is concerned the OP stand is very clear that “the complainant has challenged charging of Preferential Location Charges (PLC) more than the amounts stipulated in the agreement of sell.  However, after going through the payment plan which is part of agreement to sell it emerges that Preferential Location charges have been mentioned  as Rs.60,000/- and is clause No.3 of the Agreement to Sell a sum of Rs.60,000/- has been mentioned. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on account of charging of PLC”.
6. Finally, we find that the learned District Forum has already granted a penalty of @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month for 15 months with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 21.12.2010 till realization alongwith Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation and compensation. The relief granted is too generous in the facts and circumstances  of the case.  Hence, no modification by way of enhancement of the amount  awarded is called for and the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. Consequently, the detailed and well reasoned Order passed by the learned District Forum stands  upheld. 

 

February 22nd, 2017

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K