By all these ten Revision Petitions, a Real Estate Developer, namely, M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects (P) Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints, calls in question the correctness and legality of two sets of orders dated 02.06.2015 and 16.09.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 189, 190, 191, 192 and 193 of 2015.  By the impugned orders, the State Commission has affirmed different orders dated 16.04.2015, 23.04.2015, 17.04.2015, 24.04.2015, 27.04.2015, and 29.05.2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums I and II, UT Chandigarh (for short “the District Forums” in Complaint Cases No. 715/2013, 753/2013, 785/2013, 755/2013, 754/2013, 590/2013, 589/2014, 537/2013, 538/2013 and 103/2014. By the said orders, while accepting the Complaints filed by the Respondents herein, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner herein in charging excess amounts for the super area, the District Forums had directed the Petitioner to recalculate the super area and refund the excess amount charged from the Complainants.  The District Forums had also awarded in favour of the Complainants different amounts of compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to them, along with litigation expenses, quantified at ₹10,000/- in each of the Complaints.      

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the pleadings and the orders passed by the Fora below, in our view, the short question falling for consideration, in all these cases, relates to the determination of “Super Area” in respect of each of the subject flats, as defined in Clause-2 of the allotment letter, which reads as follows:

“2.     That the rates charged above for the area of the Apartment is correctly known as ‘Super Area’, i.e., the covered area plus walls, plus proportionate share of areas under staircases, common areas, corridors/passages, walls, lifts, shafts, machine rooms and mumties, Air Handling Unit Room on floors, Fire Control Security Room etc.  The inclusion of the common areas in the computation of super area shall not give any right, title, title or interest therein as such to the Apartment Allottee, except as provided hereunder….”

In short, the controversy is whether the “Super Area”, as calculated by the Petitioner, for which the Complainants have been charged before putting them in possession of the flats allotted to them, is as per the formula laid down in the afore-extracted Clause. 

In our view, the afore-extracted Clause is clear and leaves no scope for any ambiguity for determination/computation of “Super Area”.  It is evident from the rival stands that the real bone of contention is as to whether the land occupied for external services, viz., Underground Tank, Sub-Station, Pump Room, STP, Exhaust and Fresh Air Shaft, Generator Fuel Shaft, Guard Room, Meter Room, Isolator and Driver Room, are to be included while determining the “Super Area”.  

We are happy to note that learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that for calculation of the “Super Area”, only those areas which are used for providing the services specifically mentioned in the afore-extracted Clause shall be included, and the built-up area, for which the Complainants are to be charged, may be calculated accordingly.  Since this Commission does not have the expertise and the wherewithal to determine the actual “Super Area” of each of the flats, it is also agreed that in order to cut-short the controversy with regard to correctness or otherwise of the several reports submitted by the Local Commissioners and the Architect of the Petitioner, an independent Court Commissioner, preferably a sitting Chief Engineer, may be appointed to physically measure the flats, subject matter of these Petitions, and calculate the built-up area of each of the flats, after obtaining the requisite information/documents from the Petitioner.  It will, however, be open to the Complainants to furnish any other information, which they may consider useful for the said purpose.

In view of the above, we appoint Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Additional Director General, CPWD (Address: C-4, Tower-8, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi; Mobile No. 9818059776), as the Court Commissioner to visit the site in question and calculate built-up area/Super Area of all the flats, subject matter of these Petitions, strictly in terms of afore-noted Clause-2 of the allotment letter.  The Court Commissioner shall fix the date and time for inspection of the flats in consultation with learned Counsel for both the parties, whose mobile numbers are given hereunder:  

Counsel for the Petitioner/Builder:

Mr. Gaurav Chopra (Mobile No. 9814013127)

Mr. Arindam Ghose (Mobile No. 9873718359)

Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants:

Mr. Peeush Gagneja (Mobile No. 09988127030, 9417112630)

Mr. Snehdip Oberoy (Mobile No. 9780281207)  

The honorarium of the Court Commissioner is fixed at ₹75,000/-, out of which ₹50,000/- shall be paid by the Petitioner and the remaining amount of ₹25,000/- by all the Complainants in equal share, besides out-of-pocket expenses on travel and stay, for which appropriate arrangement shall be made by the Petitioner.  It will be open to the Court Commissioner to engage a Draftsman, whose fee/charges shall be borne in equal proportion by the Petitioner and the Complainants.

The Court Commissioner shall provide to learned Counsel for both the parties copies of his report. 

All the Revision Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, with a direction that insofar as the refund of the principal amount or payment is concerned, the orders impugned in the present Revision Petitions shall stand modified in light of the report of the Court Commissioner.  All other directions contained in the impugned orders are maintained.  It will, however, be open to either of the parties to have the Revision Petitions revived, only if the report of the Court Commissioner is shown to be suffering from inherent perversity.     

The Revision Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.