Haryana

StateCommission

CC/91/2015

ABHA THAPALYAL GANDHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

VATIKA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHISH CHAUDHARY

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

                             Consumer Complaint No.     91 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution                  04.06.2015

                                       Date of Decision                             14.02.2017

 

 

Abha Thapalyal Gandhi, resident of 10/97, Rajender Nagar, Sector 3, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad-201005, Uttar Pradesh.

                                      Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

 

 

Vatika Limited (through its Managing Director) having its registered Office at Vatika Triangle, 4^th Floor, Sushant Lok, Phase 1, Block A, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

Opposite Party

 

 

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

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

                                                                                     

                  

For the parties:   Shri Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant

                             Shri Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          Abha Thapalyal Gandhi-complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that she booked a residential flat (EMILIA) in the project ‘Vatika India Next’ with Vatika Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘builder’) vide application dated July 28^th, 2014 (Exhibit R-5).  She paid Rs.26,20,241/- vide receipts Exhibit C-1, C-2 and C-5 to C-8.  Buyers Agreement (Exhibit C-4) was executed between the parties on October 27^th, 2014.  Vide emails (Exhibit C-9 to C-13), the builder asked the complainant to deposit Rs.33,38,350/- by March 31^st, 2015.  The complainant was to make the payment in four years as per Construction Linked Payment Plan (Exhibit C-14).  It was alleged by the complainant that the builder did not inform her about the construction work done in phases, which was in violation to clause 5 of the Buyers Agreement (Exhibit C-4). 

2.      The builder filed written version pleading therein that the complainant was to make the payment under Construction Linked Payment Plan (Exhibit C-14).  The complainant did not pay the amount, so, question of handing over the possession to the complainant does not arise. 

3.      The complainant Abha Thapalyal in her evidence appeared as CW1 and produced following the documents:-

1.	Receipt	Exhibit C-1
2.	Receipt	Exhibit C-2
3.	Booking Form	Exhibit C-3
4.	Buyers Agreement	Exhibit C-4
5.	Receipts	Exhibit C-5 to C-8
6.	Emails	Exhibit C-9 to C-13
7.	Construction Linked Payment Plan	Exhibit C-14
8.	Photographs	Exhibit C-15
9.	Map	Exhibit C-16
10.	Statement of account	Exhibit C-17

 

4.      The builder, examined Bobby Kuramdas, Relationship Manager-OPW1 and produced the following documents

1.	Email Trail	Exhibit R-1 & R-2
2.	Photographs	Exhibit R-3
3.	Letter dated June 17th, 2015	Exhibit R-4
4.	Application dated July 28th, 2014	Exhibit R-5
5.	Letter dated February 29th, 2012 written by District Town and Planner, Gurgaon to the builder	Exhibit R-6
6.	Account Summary	Exhibit R-7 to R-10
7.	Letter dated April 09th, 2015	Exhibit R-11
8.	Email Trail	Exhibit R-12

 

5.      The Buyers Agreement (Exhibit C-4) executed between the complainant and the builder on October 27^th, 2014.  As per Clause 5 of the Agreement, Mode of Payment was that all payments shall be made in time in terms of Schedule of Payments as given in Annexure III to the agreement and as may be demanded by the builder from time to time and without any reminders from the builder.  Annexure III – Construction Linked Payment Plan (Exhibit C-14) is reproduced as under:-

At the time of Booking	5% of (BP + PLC)
2 Months from the date of booking	10% of BSP & 15% of PLC
4 Months from the date of booking	10% of BSP & 15% of PLC
By 31st March, 2015	15% of BSP & 10% of PLC
On Casting of Ground Floor Roof Slab	10% of BSP & 10% of PLC
On Casting of Top Floor Roof Slab	15% of BSP & 10% of PLC
On Completion of Internal Plaster	10% of BSP & 10% of PLC
On Completion of Flooring Work	15% of BSP & 15% of PLC
On Offer of Possession	10% of BSP & 10% of PLC + 100% of I.F.M.S.D + Electric Meter Charges + Gas Pipeline Charges + STP + Escalation Charges (If any).

 

6.      The complainant in her statement CW1 stated that on April 17^th, 2015 she had gone to the spot and found that flooring work was incomplete. 

7.      Bobby Kuramdas-OPW1, Relationship Manager has admitted that the complainant had paid Rs.26,20,241/- and thereafter builder sent demand letters for installments payable on casting of ground floor slab, top floor, roof slab, completion of internal plaster and completion of flooring work vide emails Exhibits R-7 to R-10 asking the complainant to deposit Rs.33,12,209.70 but the complainant did not pay the said amount, a fact which is not in dispute.  As per Construction Linked Payment Plan (Exhibit C-14), the Mode of Payment was that at the time of booking- 5% of the BSP + PLC; 2 Months from the date of booking-10% of BSP & 15% of PLC.  The complainant deposited the amount, which she was suppose to deposit on March 31^st, 2015 and thereafter she did not deposit any amount.  No plausible reason has been given by the complainant in not depositing the said amount. 

8.      Bobby Kuramdas, Relationship Manager in his deposition before this Commission has stated that the builder was ready to handover the possession of the flat within forty days from the date of deposit of the remaining amount by the complainant. The development plan has not been changed.  The Zoning Plan, Building Plan or the Lay Out Plan approved by the Town and Country Planning, Haryana has never been changed.  The builder has also placed on record photographs (Exhibit R-3) to prove that the construction was going on and the amount demanded by the builder was as per the Construction Linked Payment Plan.  Since the amount has not been deposited by the complainant, so, question of handing over of the possession of the flat to the complainant does not arise.  In the Buyers Agreement (Exhibit C-4) Clause 10.1 stipulates that the builder was suppose to complete the construction of the dwelling unit within a period of four years from the date of execution of the agreement.  The agreement was executed on October 27^th, 2014 and by calculation, the construction is to be completed by October 26^th, 2018.  The complainant did not deposit the amount as per the Construction Linked Payment Plan and the construction of the project is being completed as per the schedule, so, it cannot be said from any angle that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the builder.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

Announced 14.02.017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK