Haryana

StateCommission

A/725/2013

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uman Paul Singh - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      725 of 2013

Date of Institution:      11.10.2013

Date of Decision :       28.09.2016

 

1.     Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

2.     A.G.M. (Sales & Marketing), Sushant City, Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Panipat.

         Both the appellants through their authorised signatory Shri C.N. Roa, AGM, Legal.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

1.      Uman Paul Singh s/o Sh. Pirthi Paul Singh, Resident of H.No.192, Shanti Nagar, Panipat.

2.      Smt. Meetu Arora w/o Sh. Uman Paul Singh, Resident of House No.192, Shanti Nagar, Panipat.

                                      Respondents-Complainants

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:                    Shri Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Jasmer Singh, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of Opposite Parties’ is directed against the order dated 29^th August, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.44 of 2012.

2.                The instant complaint has been filed with the averments that Jiwan Garg and Rishi Verma booked a Villa bearing No.F-2790, measuring 239 Square Yards, with Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’)-Opposite Parties/appellants, in their project namely “Sushant Homez” vide agreement dated 5^th September, 2008   (Exhibit C-1).  Uman Paul Singh and his wife Meetu Arora-complainants (respondents herein) purchased the above said villa from the original purchasers, on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement Exhibit C-1. The total cost of the villa was Rs.30,75,000/- which was to be paid as mentioned in Schedule-I of the agreement, that is, it was construction linked payment.

3.                The builder vide letter dated 14^th April, 2011 offered possession of the villa. Statement of account was also sent to the complainants. As per summary of statement, the complainants were to deposit the amount of Rs.3,23,336/- and Rs.1,84,500/- for registration expenses with State Bank of India, G.T. Road, Panipat besides Rs.10,000/- with M/s Star Facilities Manager Limited as Security. However, again the builder issued letter dated 31^st May, 2011 showing debit account of Rs.2,33,644.34 and super built up area was shown 1427.78 square feet instead of 1200 square feet. Thus, the area of 227.78 square feet in super built up area was increased for which the amount of Rs.2,27,780/- was demanded. Alleging it as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the builder, the complainants filed complaint before the District Forum.

4.                The opposite parties-appellants in the written version stated that at the time of booking, the area of the villa was 1200 square feet and it was tentative. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement (Exhibit C-1), the builder could change the super area and the complainants were liable to pay the amount of the super built up area to the builder. Denying the allegations levelled in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

5.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the builder to refund the amount of Rs.2,27,780/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization besides Rs.2200/- as costs of litigation.

6.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

7.                During the pendency of appeal, as agreed by both the parties vide order dated 30^th September, 2015, this Commission directed District Town Planner, Panipat (where villa is situated) as under:-

“The dispute pertains to measurement of House No.F-2790.  Both the parties agree that let the measurement of above said house be got done by appointment of some government technical official, who shall take measurement as per guidelines mentioned in the plan.  Both the parties further agree to share the cost of technical expert on 50% each basis.  Accordingly, District Town Planner, Panipat of the department of Town and Country Planning is directed to depute some technical official, who shall visit the spot after issuance of notice to both the parties.  The technical person shall take the measurement of flat as per guidelines given on the plan.  The fee of the technical official is assessed at Rs.5000/-, which shall be borne by both the parties on fifty fifty basis.  The report be submitted within one month”. 

8.                Pursuance to the said direction, District Town Planner after issuance notices to both the parties inspected the spot in presence of the parties and submitted the report dated 16^th March, 2016 (Annexure-A). As per the report, the total area of the villa was found to be 115.599 Square meters, which on being converted into square feet works out to 1244.3 square feet.

9.                This Commission finds that the complainants have to pay for this increased area of 44.3 square feet and not of 227.78 square feet, as charged by the builder. The Basic Price of the villa was Rs.30,75,000/- for 1200 per square feet. The area was increased to the extent of 44.3 square feet. So, the opposite parties (builder) shall be entitled to charge Rs.1,13,519/- for the increased area of 44.3 square feet alongwith service tax, if any, chargeable.  The opposite parties shall get the conveyance-deed modified accordingly.

10.              The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Announced 28.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL