In this post we will discuss about consumer Complaint against Barnala Builders & Property Consultants wherein the court held that Special limitation periods have been prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, its Rules 1987 and its Regulations 2005 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes and it is seen that the complainant has not displayed reasonable diligence in prosecution of his appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed and consequently, appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
Also Read- More judgments against Barnala Builders Maya Garden Group and Barnala Builders & Property Consultants
Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party allotted flat no.201, block 3-A, second floor, phase 3, category A, Maya Garden, VIP Road, Zirakpur to the complainant. The flat was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 28.5.2011. Total amount paid by the complainant was Rs.36,82,374/- to the opposite party. First of all opposite party failed to handover possession on the stipulated date that was on or before 30.12.2012, as per clause 5 of the agreement and even till date flat is not ready for offer of possession. Second issue raised by the complainant was that Rs.1,10,374/- was illegally collected by the opposite party towards service tax. When complainant visited the flat, he found lot of defects in it. It had specified wooden windows in the brochure but the windows present were made up of iron. So, in this manner, he pointed out various other deficiencies to the opposite party. Complainant filed complaint being No.79 of 2014 before the State Commission. While resisting the complaint, the opposite party on the other hand, pleaded that flat was very much ready for possession but the complainant did not come forward to take the possession. At the same time, he is not expected to get the possession without paying dues. Opposite party claimed to build the entire house, as per specifications. Opposite party pleaded that Rs.1,10,374/- was collected towards tax to the Government of India.
ALSO READ- CONSUMER COMPLAINT BARNALA BUILDERS & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
Now let’s have the judgment-
Judgment digest
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab
ANIRUDH SOOD V/S M/S. BARNALA BUILDERS & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
Complainants:
ANIRUDH SOOD
S/O. SH. NAVEEN SOOOD R/O. H NO. D-103, JAGDAMBE APARTMENTS, C58/25, SECTOR-62,
NOIDA-UTTAR PRADESH
ALSO READ- M/S. BARNALA BUILDERS & PROPERTY … VS KRISHAN GOPAL & ANR. ON 8 JULY, 2020
Opposite
M/S. BARNALA BUILDERS & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
THROUGH ITS PARTNER, SCO NO. 1, OPPOSITE YES BANK, ZIRAKPUR-PATIALA ROAD, ZIRAKPUR,
DIST SAS NAGAR,
MOHALI , PUNJAB
ALSO READ- VASDEV SINGLA V. BARNALA BUILDERS AND PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
Quoram:
HON’BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Reeva Gujral, Advocate
ALSO READ- BARNALA BUILDERS & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS V. DALIP CHAND & ANR.
Facts of the case:
The flat was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 28.5.2011. Total amount paid by the complainant was Rs.36,82,374/- to the opposite party. First of all opposite party failed to handover possession on the stipulated date that was on or before 30.12.2012, as per clause 5 of the agreement and even till date flat is not ready for offer of possession. When complainant visited the flat, he found lot of defects in it. It had specified wooden windows in the brochure but the windows present were made up of iron.The parties will be referred to as complainant and the opposite party for the sake of convenience for identification inspite of this clarification which is as per the law, the State Commission has not agreed with the contention of the opposite party and has allowed the refund of the service tax to the complainant.Learned counsel for the opposite party further stated that the complainant has filed appeal No.250 of 2016 for enhancement of the compensation for the delay in possession.
Also Read- Seema Rani v. M/s Barnala Builders and Property Consultants
Both the parties are bound by the contract and the complainant cannot deserve more compensation then whatever has been agreed between the parties.learned counsel for the complainant stated that the State Commission has only allowed compensation of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month for the period of delay. This order is as per the provision of the builder-buyer agreement. It has been held by this Commission and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that this meagre compensation does not reflect the actual loss that is suffered by an allottee who does not get the possession in time and gets the possession with delay. the question of refund of service tax is concerned, the agreement clearly provides that the opposite party shall pay the service tax. The agreement is binding on both the parties and therefore, the opposite party cannot later on say that this clause was inadvertently recorded in the agreement. Both the parties have signed the agreement with their eyes open and therefore, the State Commission has rightly allowed the refund of the service tax in the present case.but thereafter could not file the appeal against impugned order within the period of limitation, as the appellants was requesting the respondent to comply with the order passed by the Ld. State Commission.,
ALSO READ- ANSAL HOUSING CONSTRUCTION LTD CONSUMER COMPLAINT NCDRC DELHI
That the applicant was not in the knowledge that the appeal has to be filed within a period of 30 days.
Special limitation periods have been prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, its Rules 1987 and its Regulations 2005 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes.The above authoritative judgments are equally applicable in the present case. It is seen that the complainant has not displayed reasonable diligence in prosecution of his appeal. Clearly, negligence and deliberate inaction are imputable to the complainant in filing his appeal. He has already been granted compensation as per the agreement between the parties. In fact, these grounds weaken the case of the complainant on merit as well because the complainant actually was not aggrieved with the impugned order and was making efforts to get the impugned order complied with by the opposite party. Thus, I do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal No.250 of 2016. Accordingly, this application is dismissed and consequently, appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
ALSO READ-RERA PUNJAB ORDERS & JUDGMENTS
Conclusion:
Based on the above discussion, both the appeals 680 of 2015 and 250 of 2016 are dismissed.
This post is written by Aditya Bhati
For any case specific advice, one can connect with best/top/expert Real Estate Lawyer Advocate practicing in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali (Tricity) and Punjab Haryana.
For more dial 9988817966
This post covers topics related to condonation of delay consumer protection act, condonation of delay in filing consumer complaint, condonation of delay in consumer appeal, condonation of delay in filing appeal before state commission, condonation of delay in filing appeal under consumer protection act ,delay condonation consumer court, supreme court condonation of delay application format, high court delay in filing written statement consumer forum.
