Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/130/2018

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Manu Loona Adv. & Manik Demla Adv.

11 Jan 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	130 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	01.03.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	11.01.2022

 

 

 

 

1]  Sanjeev Kumar aged about 39 years Verma son of Sh.Ram Saran Verma;

2]  Sangeeta Kumari aged about 35 years wife of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Verma,

Both residents of village Pungh, P.O. & Tehsil Sundernagar-I, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

Now residing at Flat No.703, Tower-11, 7^th Floor, Orchard Country Apartment, Sector 115, Mohali, Punjab 160055

             …..Complainants

 

Versus

1]  Ansal Lotus Melange Project Pvt. Ltd., registered Officer at 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002 through its Managing Director.

2]  Ansal Lotus Melange project Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office at SCO no.183-184, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Assistant Manager/Authorized Representative

     ….. Opposite Parties 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

        

                                SH.B.M.SHARMA                    MEMBER                         

 

 

For Complainant :  Sh.Manu Loona, Advocate

For OP (s)        :  Sh.Sandeep Kumar & Sh.Sumit Kumar, Advocates

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainants on 1.2.2011 booked/purchased one apartment No.T-11, 703, Block/Tower-11, 7^th Floor, Orchard County, having tentative area 1292 sq. ft. @Rs.2450/- per sq. ft. along with Club Membership of Rs.45,000/- and other paid for Parking (covered) @Rs.1,00,000/- and also paid PLC Park Facing @Rs.100/- per sq. ft., in the project of OPs to be constructed in the name of ‘Orchard Country’ by OPs in Sector 115, Mohali, the possession of which was to be handed over to the complainant within a period of 24 to 30 months from the date of booking (Ann.C-1). Accordingly, allotment letter Ann.C-2 was issued to the complainants.  However, the complainants got the possession of the said unit/flat only on 27.2.2016 with a delay of more than 2 years as committed in the application form at the time of purchase. It is stated that after shifting to the flat, the complainants were shocked to see that OPs have misrepresented the complainants and gave false promises at the time of purchase of the flat in question. It is submitted that the Unit allotted to the complainants was carrying a Park Facing (Prime Location Charges (PLC)) for which the OPs charged from them an amount of Rs.1,29,200/- but to their surprise, no park/very less area of park is visible from any of the balcony of the flat of complainants (Ann.C-3 & C-4).  It is also submitted that at the time of taking possession, the complainants were forced to pay area enhancement charges of Rs.100/- sq. ft. amounting to Rs.2,14,000/- but actually & physically, no such enhancement in the area is found in the apartment, so the complainants have illegally been charged on that ground.  It is further submitted that the OPs have charged parking charges from the complainants in the year 2011, whereas the possession of actual parking have been given on 16.6.2016 (Ann.C-8).  It is pleaded that the construction qualify of the building is very poor, none of the material as promised is used in finishing and furnishing of the apartment and the entire project, as a whole.  It is also pleaded that there is no proper maintenance provided by the OPs whereas they are to maintain the complex project as they are charging huge amounts towards monthly maintenance of the society and other services.  It is further pleaded that the construction work of the complete project has not been completed by the OPs as a result the complainants were forced to live in a polluted, dusty, noisy environment. It is asserted that the complainants have made all the payments in time, but due to delay on the part of OPs in delivering the possession, they were forced to live in rented accommodation during the period of delay and suffering financial loss. The complainants brought this matter to the notice of the OPs, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  

 

2]       The OP has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainants had agreed to accept flat with all additions, deletions, alterations, modifications in the lay out, building plan, change in number, dimensions, height, size, area or change of the entire scheme, to reduce or increase in the super area of the premises, or its location and to raise the claim for the charges for the changed area at the same rate at which the apartment was registered/booked. It is stated that in the allotment letter, it is made clear that the plan, designs, specifications shown to allottee were tentative.  It is further stated that as per the allotment letter, the allottee shall pay the price of the premises on the basis of super area and said conditions are mentioned in Condition No.9, 10 and 13 of the Allotment Letter, so the charges have been taken from the complainants, on the basis of aforesaid terms.  It is pleaded that no additional charges have been taken from the complainants as alleged and that the possession of the apartment has been delivered to the complainants within reasonable time.  It is also pleaded that the complainants have taken possession of the flat/apartment willingly; as such they are not entitled to any relief being tally against the terms & conditions agreed between the parties. It is submitted that Hon’ble National Commission had appointed a Court Commissioner bearing the Rank of Special Director General (Delhi Region), CPWD-New Delhi, who submitted report dated 20.10.2017 (Ann.OP-1), wherein it is specifically stated that with regard to Flat at Tower-7 of Orchard County, details measurements were taken and no discrepancy was found in the flat area; the sale area as per developer’s sheet was verified and found no change. It is also submitted that the complainant have already taken physical possession of the said flat on 27.2.2016 unconditionally after satisfying themselves regarding area dimensions etc. as all as common areas.  It is asserted that once the possession is taken by the complainants without protest, they are stopped from disputing the fact of delay of possession and moreover, the agreement to sell has not stipulated any particular date of offer of possession. Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

4]       We have gone through entire documents & evidence on record.

5]       It is established from Allotment Letter Ann.C-2 as well as an admitted fact that the Opposite Parties have charged PLC (Preferential Location Charges) from the complainants in request of the Unit in question.  The complainants after taking possession of the flat found that the flat is not having any preferential location/park facing location, so they raised this issue with OPs and sought refund, but OPs did not pay any heed. This act of the OP Company not only caused financial loss to the complainants, but also caused them immense harassment & agony.  Thus, this Commission is of the firm view that Opposite Parties have has failed to render proper services as per the commitments/promises made to the complainants while allotting the unit in question.  Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by OP Company is clearly established.

6]       It is also proved on record from Report of Court Commissioner dated 20.10.2017 (Ann.OP-1), appointed by Hon’ble National Commission, observation 1(a), that with regard to flat at  Tower-7 of Orchard County, detailed measurements were taken and no discrepancy was found in the flat area.  The sale area as per developer’s sheet was verified and found no change.  Further the claim of complainants about delay in delivering the possession is concerned, the same is not proved as no specific date/months/year of delivery has been mentioned in the allotment letter and moreover, the possession admittedly has already been delivered way back in 2016.  

7]       In the light of above observations, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainants and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainants stands partly allowed against the Opposite Parties with direction to refund the PLC Charges of Rs.1,29,200/- to the complainants.  The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay a compository amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants towards compensation for causing mental agony & harassment and litigation expenses. 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above awarded amount.

        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced                                                             

11^th January, 2022                                                                                                                                                    sd/- 

                                      (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER