This post is a summary of judgment wherein the complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs on the averments that he entered into an agreement for allotment of the flat comprising of 1379 sq. ft but at the time of possession the possession of the super built area handed over to the complainant was approximately 1150 sq. ft. only. The Court held that the appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.1,0,1,000/- in compliance with the order of this commission. Both these amounts with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Also Read- M/S Dynasty Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs Harjit Singh
Judgment digest
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.1313 of 2013
Date of Institution: 29.11.2013
Date of Decision: 06.06.2016
Complainants:
- Dynasty Buildwell Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Office, 9th Floor, Paras Downtown Center, Sector Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon through its authorized signatory – Mr. M.K Tripathi, at present corporate office, 11th floor, Paras Twin Towers, Sector Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon.
- Paras Panorama Apartment, Paras Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, 11th Floor, Paras Twin Towers (Tower B), Sector 54, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, through its Senior Manager Sales and Marketing.
- Senior Manager Sales and Marketing, Paras Panorama Apartment, Paras Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, 11th Floor, Paras Twin Towers (Tower-B ), Sector 54, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon.
- Harinder Nagar s/o Sh. V.R. Nagar, resident of AF-211, New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110065.
- The Manager, Paras Panorama (A Residential Project of Paras Buildtech), Chandigarh Kharar Highway, Kharar, District Mohali).
- Paras Twin Towers, 11th Floor, Tower B, Sector 54, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon through its C.E.O.
Opposites:
Harbhajan Singh Tagarh son of Shri Jagir Singh, resident of Block B1, Flat No.C-7, Sugandha Apartments, Near Guru Dawara Sahib, Solan (H.P).
Also Read- Preeti Walia v. Dynasty Buildwell Private Limited – Casemine
Facts and evidence presented by both parties.
The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) against the OPs on the averments that he agreed to allotment of the flat comprising of 1379 sq. ft with two-bedrooms, master bedroom, and kitchen bearing unit no.003, flat no.103, Block No.A-1, Type 2-A on the ground floor in Tower A-1 situated in Paras Panorama in Tehsil Kharar District Mohali in a residential apartment in Paras Panorama Kharar for a sum of Rs.25,51,150/-. The OPs forced the complainant to sign a Tripartite Maintenance Agreement dated 14.12.2010, which was to be enforced after handing over the possession of the said flat. The Tripartite Maintenance Agreement regarding the payment of maintenance was to be executed because the development has not been fully completed. The complainant paid the entire amount to OPs, as per schedule. The super-built area was 1379 sq. ft, which was sold to the complainant. But at the time of possession, as per para no.3 of the agreement, the possession of the super built area handed over to the complainant was approximately 1150 sq. ft. only. The complainant is, thus, entitled to refund of the amount on account of reduced super built-up area proportionately at that rate. The sewerage flush system is not working satisfactorily, electricity points are not laid properly and water outlet for water purifier and washing machines have not been provided. The basic amenities are not there like freshwater, permanent electricity, roads, parking places, and others as detailed above. It is a case of gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs for not providing the basic amenities to the complainant. The sanitary system was not functioning properly because the lower quality material has been used. The sub-standard material and fixtures and fittings were not properly working because of some constructional defects leading to percolation/seepage of water from upper floor to lower floor etc. artificial beams to give the beam look have been made by the hardboard just to cover the sewerage drainage pipes of the upper floor in the roof of drainage room as well as bedroom of the flat of the complainant.
They generally remain blocked and started to leak and the drainage water comes from there by the process of seepage in the bedrooms and drawing-room. The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Punjab Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests issued the clearance certificate to the OPs for construction of residential complex “Paras Panorama” at Kharar on 28.09.2006 to 02.12.2010, but a conditional certificate was issued, which was not complied with by the OPs. The OPs have been demanding the maintenance charges illegally and forcibly and also at a rate, which is irrational and illogical. The OPs have not taken an occupation certificate, completion certificate so far and they could not demand the maintenance charges because there is no such agreement in the allotment letter or the brochure. At the time of sale, the OPs were to develop the Paras Panorama Housing Project in the area of 11.6 acres, but later on, the OPs have reduced more than half of the area; and on that area, the construction of another project known as Palm village has been started, whereas, earlier that area Club House, swimming pool, lush green park, cricket practicing ground, etc were to be provided to occupants/allottees. The price of the flat was calculated based on development charges, CLU, and other expenses on the land measuring 11.7 acres, and the price of the flat was demanded according to the area only. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant has, thus, prayed that OPs be directed to pay compensation for not providing the above basic amenities by reducing the area of the project from 11.7 acres to 5 acres, not to charge maintenance charges from the complainant till actual completion of the project and if charged then the same may be adjusted from IFMS, the complainant be allowed to get the BSNL, as well as, cable connections, as per their requirements and to provide a communication system, besides to pay Rs.5 lac as compensation for mental harassment to the complainant. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written replies and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. The District Forum correctly awarded compensation to the complainant now respondent in this appeal.
Also Read- Lt. Col Manjit Kumar v. Dynasty Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. – Casemine
Judgment:
The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.1,0,1,000/- in compliance with the order of this commission. Both these amounts with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. The remaining amount shall also be paid to the complainant by the appellants, as per the order of District Forum within 45 days from receipt of the copy of this order.
Also Read- Real Estate Regulatory Authority – RERA Punjab
For case specific advice, please connect with Top Best Expert Legal Consultants Attorneys in Real Estate/Property Estate/Consumer Court and Consumer Protection Dispute/ Consumer Grievances and Complaints/RERA Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc..
For more info, call 9988817966.
