Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/510/2014

Ms. Meetu Sangha - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rajinder Singh Raj & Kirandeep Kaur

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/510/2014
Date of Institution	:	1/08/2014
Date of Decision	:	04/04/2016

 

1.     Ms. Meetu Sangha

2.     Col. Jagjit Singh

Both residents of Flat No.21, Top Floor, Palm Grove Apartments, Sector 115, Mohali.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through Ms. Nidhi Manchanda, Sr. Executive (Sales & Mrkg.).

……Opposite Party

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Rajiv Bhatia, Counsel for OP

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Ms. Meetu Sangha and Col. Jagjit Singh, complainants have filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that the OP advertised in various newspapers (Annexure C-1) about the construction and allotment of residential apartments in the proposed Palm Grove Luxury Apartments with assured possession within 24 months.  The complainants booked one apartment in the said proposed apartments on 15.6.2009 and they were allotted Flat No.21 on the top floor, Palm Grove Apartments, Sector 115, Mohali on the Kharar-Landran road, having a super built-up area of 1525 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.1,950.81 per sq. ft. total amounting to Rs.29,75,000/- vide allotment letter dated 26.6.2009 (Annexure C-2). 

                According to the complainants, the OP could not complete the construction work in item despite paying all the due amounts in the month of December 2012 and only handed over the possession to them on 26.11.2013 vide possession letter dated 21.12.2012.  At that time the OP informed the complainants that there is an increase in the super built-up area from 1525 to 1678 sq. ft. for which an amount of Rs.2,96,475/- plus Rs.9,223/- as tax was demanded. The OP also illegally demanded the sum of Rs.45,248/- as maintenance charges from December 2012 to November 2013 which was paid by the complainants in good faith. In addition, the OP also charged another sum of Rs.60,000/- illegally for open car parking and Rs.25,000/- as interest free maintenance and security deposit.  The complainant also had to pay one pre-EMI for the month of October 2012 amounting to Rs.22,000/- approximately which was the duty of the OP to pay.  The complainants have pleaded that the OP is also not executing the sale deed in their favour. The complainants have contended that the possession of the flat had been handed over to them without proper infrastructure; the area is without proper roads and without lifts; there is no sufficient parking place and that the quality of construction is sub-standard; wooden flooring is decaying and there is water seepage. Even the promised amenities like club, tennis court, badminton and basket ball grounds, swimming pool, jogging track etc. have not been provided.  The complainants served a legal notice dated 13.2.2014 upon the OP, but to no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainants have filed the instant complaint.

2.         In its written reply by way of affidavit, the OP has taken a number of preliminary objections including that disputed questions of fact and law are involved in the present case which cannot be decided in summary proceedings; that the complainants have got no locus standi to file the present complaint.  It has been admitted that the complainants purchased the flat in question. It has been denied that the OP could not complete the construction in time and that the OP has charged amount illegally from the complainant on various issues i.e. increased area, car parking, maintenance charges etc.  It has been averred that the payment has been charged in accordance with the allotment letter. It has been contended that the complainants have made themselves duly satisfied before taking possession by inspecting all ownership documents, approved layout plans, approved building plans as well as Area Measurement Books duly certified by qualified engineers. It has been pleaded that as per clause 9, the super area was subject to change and it could be increased or decreased. It has been stated that the complainants never approached the OP till date for execution and registration of the sale deed. It has been denied that the possession of the flat was handed over to the complainants without proper infrastructure and that the promised amenities like club, tennis court, badminton and basket ball grounds etc. have not been provided.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments of the OP, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the OP.
5.         In this case an application was filed on behalf of the complainants for appointing a Local Commissioner to ascertain the correct area of the flat in question. But the complainants did not come forward to pay the fee to the appointed Local Commissioner despite repeated opportunities.  As the proceedings before this Forum are summary in nature the case could not be kept pending indefinitely particularly when the present case was at the stage of rejoinder of the complainant and arguments.  Further various opportunities were given to the complainant for filing rejoinder and written arguments but the same were not filed. Even after hearing the arguments of the Opposite Party an opportunity was granted to the complainants to file written arguments but it was also not done by them, which seems deliberate action on their part. Still after going through the complaint and evidence on record, we observe that the contention of the Opposite Party that the allotment letter is legally signed enforceable agreement and in case any dispute the same is to be decided by the civil court and not by the consumer Forum.  However, we feel that the above arguments are devoid of any substance. Even if the allotment   letter is legally enforceable agreement, the District Forum can still decide the disputes arising out of the contract as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The facts of the present case do not require detailed complicated investigation of facts and can be decided under summary procedure and in speedy manner. Thus, there is no need to relegate the complainants to civil court.
6.         It has been contended by the complainants that the Opposite Party are not executing the sale deed because the land is still not transferred in its name. However, it is pertinent that the complainants have not produced even a single letter which could show that they made a request to the Opposite Party for execution of sale deed but it refused/not considered by the Opposite Party. However, it is significant to note that the complainants have not sought relief for a direction to the Opposite Party to execute the sale deed. Otherwise also since the cost of the flat is mentioned as Rs.29,75000/-  as per the allotment letter dated 26.6.2009 Annexure C-2, this Forum has no jurisdiction to pass an order regarding the execution of the sale deed. Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party on this account.
7.         The complainant have next contended that the Opposite Party has made an illegal demand of Rs.60,000/-  on account of car parking. It has also been contended that the Opposite Party is not entitled to overcharge towards any area, which was actually never increased or to charge any amount towards open/stilled car parking area.  However, we are not impressed with this contention because as per the case of the Opposite Party even in the schedule attached with the allotment letter it is clearly mentioned that an amount of Rs.60,000/- was payable towards the car parking. But the complainants failed to produce the copy of the schedule attached with the allotment letter and the payment plan, which draws us an adverse inference against them.  The complainants did not raise any protest at the time of making payment of Rs.60,000/- towards car charges. Hence at this stage it cannot be contended by the complainants that the Opposite Party is not entitled to the car parking charges of Rs.60,000/-.
8.         The next contention of the complainants is that the flat has been handed over to them without proper infrastructure. According to the complainants the area of the flat is without proper roads and the flat is without lifts. There is no sufficient parking space. The quality of construction is sub standard, wooden flooring is decaying. There is water seepage on the walls and the promised amenities like club, tennis court, badminton and basket ball grounds, swimming pool etc. have not been provided by the Opposite Party.  The allegations of the complainants have been denied by the Opposite Party. It has been contended that there are proper roads, lifts and parking space and the construction work is good. It has been contended that the complainants before taking the actual physical possession had enough time to satisfy themselves regarding quality, facilities, and comfort in the project and after making payment without any protest and demur, the objections at this stage are meaningless.
9.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments. It is important to note that the complainants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the above said facilities are not available, and operational. Not only this, request for appointment of Local Commissioner was made by the complainants specifically for making report about the alleged enhanced area of flat and car parking. But it has already been  mentioned that the complainants deliberately neither paid the fee for the Local Commissioner appointed by this Forum nor filed rejoinder/written arguments till the last date of the oral arguments. Opportunity was granted to the complainants to file written arguments even after hearing of final arguments but the same were not filed by them. It shows that they themselves were not interested to get report of the expert i.e. the Local Commissioner for proving their allegation. So far as  the contention of the complainants that they were not provided with all the facilities/amenities as promised by the Opposite Party is concerned, according to the Opposite Party all the facilities/amenities are there  and very much operational. The Opposite Party has produced on record photographs Annexure R-6 (colly)  showing that all the facilities regarding which the complaint has been made by the complainants are existing. Consequently, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party on this account.
10.         The complainants have next contended that the Opposite Party at its own has increased the super build up area of the flat from 1525 Sq. ft. to 1678 sq. flt. It has been contended that consent of the complainants was not obtained for increasing the area and complainants have been burdened with extra amount. The complainants have urged that the Opposite Party be directed to refund the amount charged for the  increased area.
11.         We have given our anxious consideration to the contention of the complainants. As per allotment letter Annexure C-2  the total super build up area of the apartment/flat was 1525 sq. ft. approximately. In this allotment letter there is mention of plan, design, specifications, which were effective. The said plans and specifications were accepted by the allottees/complainants such as additions, deletion, alterations, modifications in the lay out, building plans etc. or change of entire scheme by the company. Since each page of the allotment letter is signed by the complainants and there is no averment that the allotment was signed under any misrepresentation, fraud, inducement or coercion, it would be deemed that the allotment letter was signed by the complainants with open eyes and after understanding terms and conditions of the same.  Otherwise also the complainants cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 26.6.2009 before this Forum in the year 2014. If the terms and conditions were to be challenged, the same could have been challenged in the civil court within a period of limitation. Since the complainants are bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letters, there is no merit in this contention that the super build area of the flat could not be increased.
12.         The next question that arises for determination is whether super area of the apartment of the complainants has actually been increased or not? As already mentioned that the complainants themselves did not perform part of their obligation in the form of paying fee to the Local Commissioner despite the fact that they themselves showed their willingness for the expert opinion by appointing a Local Commissioner as they deliberately did not come forward for the same. So we do not find any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party in this account also.
13.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the complainant. The same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
14.                 The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	sd/-
04/04/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
Hg/mp	Member	Presiding Member