Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/128/2015

Munish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Omaxe Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Tarun Malhotra

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	128 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	26.2.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	6.4.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Munish Kumar s/o Sh. Barjinder Mohan r/o of H. No.917/1, Sector 40A,  Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. Omaxe Limited SCO 139-140, 1st floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager.
2. Omaxe Ltd. C/o Omaxe Park Woods, Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan (HP), through its Project Incharge.
3. Omaxe Ltd., 7 Local shopping Centres, Kalkaji, New Delhi, 110019 through its Managing Director.

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:                                                                     PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                             PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA           MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Arun Malhotra, Adv.
For OPs	:	Sh. Munish Gupta, Adv.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant applied for allotment of a plot in the project of the Opposite Parties  and he was allotted a residential plot bearing No.10 in the said project. Thereafter an agreement dated 24.11.2008 Annexure C-1 was executed between the parties. The complainant opted for payment schedule as per Plan ‘A’ and ‘B’ i.e. installment payment plan. Accordingly as per schedule of payment plan ‘B’ the complainant paid entire cost of the plot and also paid additional charges as per Annexure ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the agreement.  Accordingly the OPs issued no due certificate to the complainant.   As per agreement the possession of the plot was to be delivered by the opposite parties on 24.2.2010. But they failed to do so. However, the complainant received a letter dated 4.5.2010 from the OPs offering possession of the plot in question wherein the  complainant was given a time of 15 days to take possession of the plot in question. Further the complainant received a letter dated 9.4.2010 from the OPs in this regard. The complainant on receipt of  the letters visited the site and was shocked to see that the plot offered to the complainant was not developed and no amenities and infrastructure were provided therewith. The complainant protested the matter with the OPs vide various letters stating that despite making all the payment the plot was not ready for possession with all the amenities. Even NOC as required was not sought by the Opposite Parties from the various government authorities.  But nothing was done. Ultimately the complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.7.2013 to the Opposite Parties but to no avail. Even reminder of the legal notice was sent to the OPs but nothing fruitful came out.  Alleging  deficiency on the  part of the Opposite Parties the instant complaint has been filed.

2.                 Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.                 Opposite Parties in their joint reply raised the preliminary objection to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer as he purchased the plot for the purpose of investment and he owns a residential unit at Sector 40, Chandigarh.  It has been further objected that the complaint is barred by time as the possession was offered way back in 2010 and the grievance has been raised by the complainant after 5 years. It has been averred that the complainant did not adhere to the payment plan and made the payment of installments delayed. Originally the property was booked in June 2008 by customer namely Property Promtions and later the same was purchased by the complainant and endorsement qua the purchase was completed on 1.7.2008 and agreement dated 24.11.2008 was entered into between the parties.  As per the OPs even the complainant was given a discount of Rs.44,772.75 on 14.1.2009. The complainant was offered possession of the plot in question on 9.4.2010 and 4.5.2010, however, complainant made payment of the remaining dues only on 1.6.2010 and accordingly possession was handed over.  The allegations of the  complainant qua plot being not developed and infrastructure and amenities having not been provided have been denied. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.          The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

 

7.          The Opposite Parties has taken objection regarding limitation of the complaint. A thorough perusal of file reveals that the complainant in para NO.5 of the complaint admitted that he was offered possession on 4.5.2010 and 9.4.2010.  The plea of the complainant is that the plot was not developed and no amenities were provided with the same.  The complainant did not agitate the matter at that time. It is apparent from Annexure C-5 that the complainant agitated the matter after two years of offer of the possession and thereafter by sending legal notice dated 16.7.2013. We are of the considered opinion that mere correspondence does not extend the period of warranty. If the complainant had any grievance regarding the plot, he should have raised the issue before an appropriate Forum within two years from the date of offer. But he failed to do so and approached this Forum only after lapse of almost 5 years i.e. beyond the limitation period. Hence the complaint is barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed solely on this ground.

8.          Even on merit the main emphasis of the complainant in his complaint is that the OPs have  failed to deliver the physical possession of the plot in question alongwith all the amenities and infrastructure till date and non-delivery of residential plot in question has caused additional financial burden of Rs.1.50 lacs and 2.50 lacs  to the complainant. The complainant has failed to submit on record documentary evidence regarding as to how the aforesaid additional financial burden was suffered by him. If the complainant was not satisfied on the offer of possession he could have raised his grievance regarding non development of the plot with amenities at that time and should have moved to this Forum. Even he has not sought physical possession of the plot in his prayer clause of the complaint, which itself proves that he actually have the physical possession of the plot.  Hence we are considered view that no deficiency proves on the part of the OPs.  

9.          For the reasons recorded above, the complaint does not have any merit and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

 

Announced

6.4.2016         

 (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

p>

 

MEMBER