This post covers Marvel Homes Construction Consumer Complaint for deficiency of services. Dial 99888-17966 to know more.
Sheenu vs M/S Marvel Homes Construction on 17 May, 2018
- Date of Institution: 29.09.2017
- Date of Reserve: 30.04.2018
- Date of Decision: 17.05.2018
Also Read- Sheenu vs M/S Marvel Homes Construction … on 17 May, 2018
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Complainant has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties under S. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that Op Nos. 1 & 2 advertised their project, namely, ‘Motia Marvel Homes’ on the land situated at Barewal Road, Backside Gurdev Hospital, Ludhiana. Brochure was issued reflecting the amenities to be provided and highlighted structural and proposed building plans.
It provided 60% open space to be left in the project by mentioning that the same would be allowed to the allottees and residents to enjoy the nature. Against the 40% covered area, club house, swimming pool, lush playground, billiard table, health club and multipurpose recreational hall and round the clock security was promised. It was also highlighted of independent car parking, high speed elevators of Kone or OTIS Company having capacity of 10 passengers with automatic rescue device system. It comprised 48 flats and 8 towers i.e. 6 flats in each tower. Allured by the highlights of the project, the complainant agreed to purchase flat No. 4, 3rd floor in Tower C for a total price of Rs. 52 Lacs. Agreement to sell dated 29.1.2015 was entered into between the parties. After completion of formalities and payment of the expenses for stamp duty etc., sale deed Vasika No. 11245 dated 19.3.2015 was executed. It has been further mentioned number of amenities were not provided in the project. The complainant and her husband approached Ops but with no result, then complainant got served a legal notice dated 29.4.2016 calling upon Op Nos. 1 & 2 to provide all amenities along with completion certificate.
Also Read- Statement of Projects Where Penalty is Paid for Delayed Possession
PRAYER BY THE COMPLAINANT:
(a) Allow the complaint and opposite party No. 1 and 2 be directed to handover legal possession to the complainant after obtaining requisite permissions/sanctions i.e. Occupation/Completion certificate from competent authority and after providing all facilities/amenities, as detailed in the brochure, which are non-existing even as no date, on the spot as also by obtaining NOC from Fire Officer, MC, Ludhiana to ensure fire safety in building.
(b) Opposite party No. 1 and 2 be directed to pay 18% interest on the amounts paid by complainant, from the respective date of payment till providing of all facilities/amenities as detailed in para 18 above, as also till obtaining of requisite sanctions i.e. Completion/Occupation Certificate by Opposite Party No. 1 and 2.
(c) Opposite party no. 1 and 2 be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Lacs on account of mental agony, harassment etc. caused to the complainant.
(d) Op No. 3 be burdened with costs of at least Rs. 2 lacs, as Op no. 3 has admittedly received fees/charges/stamp duty for execution of sale deed, which is an illegal act.
(e) Award litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs in favour of the complainant to be paid by the Opposite Parties.
(f) Ops be directed to pay sum of Rs. 1 lac to the complainant, obtained from her as maintenance charges, along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of respective payment till realization.
(g) Any other relief to which the complainant may be entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the complainant and against the Ops.
(h) Cost of the complaint be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.
Also Read- Smt.Sheenu v. Marvel Homes Constructions | Judgment | Law
CONTENTION OF OPPOSITE PARTY:
When no reply was received, complainant referred consumer complaint No. 403 of 2016 before the District Forum, Ludhiana. Ops did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte. They challenged the proceedings before the Hon’ble State Commission and the said prayer was declined in F.A. No. 619 of 2016. The said order was further challenged before the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2800 of 2016, which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2016, however, the learned District Forum on surmises and conjectures dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant holding that the facilities mentioned in the brochure have since been superseded on account of sale deed and agreement to sell having been executed, therefore, the facilities not forming part of agreement to sell need not to be provided by Op Nos. 1 & 2.
The order of the District Forum was challenged in F.A. No. 280 of 2017. In the meantime, judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case of ‘Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Others Versus Ferros Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.’ had come into being, which had laid down that the issues with regard to facilities, the value of the subject matter is to be taken into consideration to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction. Accordingly, the State Commission allowed the complainant to withdraw the complaint as well as the appeal as the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum and also granted a permission to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action vide order dated 11.9.2017. The facilities as detailed in the brochure are not existing at the spot as Ops have installed lifts of Schindler Company with capacity of 8 persons whereas in the brochure they had promised to provide OTIS/KONE lifts with capacity of 10 persons with automatic rescue device, there would be 60% space kept open to enjoy nature and to inhale the bounty of natural surrounding but only a small ground has been left and the remaining has been covered under the construction, swimming pool has not been constructed and there is no provision of club house/ health club and billiards table along with multipurpose recreation hall.
There is no firefighting gas or water and only box of firefighting cable have been installed. There would be green trees and beautiful surroundings adjoining to the wall. Ops had left no space for planting trees. In the brochure and sale deed, single separate parking space was proposed and for every flat owner but no parking lot has been made, they have failed to install fountain in the middle of the park, failed to install glass to cover the building, completion/occupation certificate of the project and apartment to the complainant has not been applied with the Competent Authorities. They have also failed to take approval from the Airport Authority of India. Ops have mis-utilized the FAR permitted by the Regulatory Authority by constructing 8 Pent Houses over and above 48 flats on the top of every tower. Therefore, the possession of the flat handed over to the complainant is in fact incomplete and illegal possession. There is violation of Municipal Corporation Act as well as PAPRA, 1995. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in services on the part of Op.
Also Read- REAL ESTATE REGULATION AUTHORITY, PUNJAB
ORDER OF THE COURT:
The court partly accepted the complaint and directed Ops No. 1 & 2 as under: –
(i) Complete the swimming pool within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the Ops will pay to the complainant compensation @ Rs. 2500/- per month till the date of completion of the swimming pool.
(ii) Instead of one car parking, the complainant will be entitled to two car parkings.
(iii) for installing lifts of Schindler Company that too without automatic rescue device system as agreed in the brochure, the Ops will pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
(iv) Ops are directed to get the completion certificate from the Competent Authority appointed under the PAPRA or under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order; failing which it shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the complainant till they get the completion certificate from the Competent Authority.
(v) Ops are further directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
(vi) pay Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses.
The above directions be complied by the Ops within a period of two days from the date of receiving of the copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under Sections 25 & 27 of the CP Act against the Ops.
Also Read- P.Sathya Kumari v. M/s.Land Marvel Homes – Casemine
CASE SUMMARY:
The Ops were under legal obligation to get the completion certificate. Even if the sale deed has been executed in favour of the complainant even that is not a bar to get the completion certificate. In this regard, the counsel for the complainant has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission 2017(3) CPJ 569 “Dr. Pradeep B. Pawar versus Dilip Varyamal Virmani Kamal Nagar”. In that case, completion certificate issued by Gram Panchayat. It was mentioned that it is not a valid certificate taken without consulting District Town Planner. It was further observed that sale deed is also defective if it is taken without Completion Certificate in accordance with law. No contrary judgment has been cited by the counsel for the complainant. Therefore, the plea taken by the counsel for the Ops that sale deed has been executed, therefore, completion certificate is not required, is no ground. Even if the sale deed has been executed, the completion/occupation certificate as required under the PAPRA or Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 be obtained by the Ops.
Also Read- in the real estate appellate tribunal, 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.
More on 99888-17966.
