State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Raj Paul Gulati vs M/S Dlf Universal Ltd. & Anr. on 27 September, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision:27.09.2013 Complaint Case No.139/2002 Sh. Raj Paul Gulati . Complainants s Smt. Kamal Gulati Both resident of 22, Birkdale Crescent through Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Halifax, N.S., Canada. advocate. ALSO AT 520B, Hamilton Court, DLF City, Gurgaon, Haryana. Versus 1. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. . Opposite Parties DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, through Mr. Aditya Narain, New Delhi -110001 2. The Chairman, M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110001 CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Ms. Salma Noor Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
YES Ms. Salma Noor, Member
1. The facts of the case are that in October 1993, the complainants s, non resident Indian, presently staying in Canada, booked a flat No.X-146, in DLF Regency Park, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana with the OP Developer Company for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,66,515/- payable in 12 installments and paid Rs.1,50,000/- as the booking charges on 23.03.1994. The OP executed a Residential Apartment Buyers Agreement in favour of the complainants on 23.03.1994, copy of which is Ex. CW-1/2 on the record.
2. By November 1994, the complainants paid off entire consideration to the OP. As provided in clause 16 of the brochure, the OP had proposed to deliver the possession of the flat within 2 to 3 years, from the date of booking, while the OP delivered its possession to the complainants on 15.05.2000. After execution of the Buyers Agreement and before giving him the possession of the flat in February 1998, the OP demanded from the complainants , Rs.4,11,292/- towards the escalated price, which the complainants paid the OP somewhere in April-May 1998. In August 1998, the OP) charged Rs.62,870/- from the complainants towards the parking charges.
Subsequently in October 1999, the OP asked the complainants to pay him Rs.1,92,400/- towards the stamp duty and the fee of registration, which the complainants paid him in the month October 1999.
3.
4. On 06.05.2002 the complainants on the following grounds alleging negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the OP in the construction and delivery of possession filed a complaint before this Commission.
I. The OP before booking, in his brochure, had represented that the value of the flat at the time of booking will be escalation free in the future, while the OP after receipt of the entire sale consideration had taken from the complainants Rs.4,11,292/- towards the escalation charges.
II.
In October 1999, the OP took from the complainants Rs.1,92,400/- towards stamp duty and the registration fee, while on 29.06.2007, he executed the sale deed and had thus utilized the money for gaining the personal profits.
III.
In August 1998, the OP took from the complainants Rs.62,870/-
towards the parking charges, while on 29.06.2007, he executed the sale deed and thus utilized this money for his personal profit during this period.
IV.
On 15.05.2000 after taking the possession, the complainants found that the flat had the following defects and shortcomings (i) seepage in the toilets (ii) substandard flooring and tile work in the toilets (iii) slope of toilets not as per specification,
(iv) uncovered electrical channel boxes, (v) slope of floor of one bedroom was towards cupboard, (vi) flooring of living room was uprooted at various places.
5. The complainants prayed that the OP be directed to refund him Rs.4,11,292/- charged towards the escalation price alongwith interest @18% from April-May 1998 till the date of realization, pay him interest @18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.1,92,400/- taken towards the stamp duty and registration fee, from October 1999 to 29.06.2007, interest @18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.62,870/- taken towards the parking charges, from August 1998 to 15.05.2000, when the possession of the flat was given to him. He further prayed that the OP be directed to pay the complainants Rs.2,27,880/- towards the rectification of construction defects in the flat, interest @18% on the amount of Rs.11,66,515/- from October 1996 till 15.05.2000 when the possession to the complainants of the flat was given, Rs.1,00,000/- towards the compensation. The complainants further prayed that the OP be also directed to pay him an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the to and fro charges for their two visits visiting from Canada to Delhi in March-April 1998, August 1999, on instructions of the OP for inspection of the wooden work in his flat.
6. The OP opposed the claim and filed the written version, alleging that on 15.05.2000 the OP at the time of delivery of possession of the flat and that of parking space obtained two separate acknowledgements (Annexure 14 and 15) from the complainants duly signed by him to the effect that the complainants had inspected the construction of the apartment and confirmed that the apartment is complete in all respect, and he has no claim against the OP in terms of work done or any defect in designs, specification, building material used or for any reason whatsoever, and that the complainants in connection of parking space, shall have no claim against the OP. The complainants had suppressed the factum of these two acknowledgements issued by him in his full satisfaction of taking the delivery of the apartment and parking space. Therefore no cause of action survives for bringing this complaint against the OP, in respect of construction defects in the flat and claiming amount for repairs and also interest on the amount paid by the complainants for parking space.
7. We have heard Sh. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, counsel for the complainants and Sh. Aditya Narayan, counsel for the OP in this complaint.
8. The answer of the OP to the claim of the complainants is that the matter has already been decided between the parties as will appear in the recital at page 4 and 7 of the sale deed of the Apartment, which have been mentioned as follows:-
And whereas the Vendee(s) having been fully satisfied with the tile of the Vendors and after satisfying himself/herself that the construction had been made in accordance with the agreed drawings, designs and specifications or the revisions thereof, has entered into an Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 23.03.1994 with the Vendors to purchase from the Vendors a residential Apartment No.X-146, Type Senator on 14th Floor of the Building X, having a super area of approximately 165.05 sq. mtrs (1777 sq. ft. approximately) as given in Annexure IV(hereinafter referred to as the said Apartment more fully described in Schedule I, hereunder written) in multi storeyed building Block No.X(hereinafter referred to as the said building) located in Regency Park-II, Phase-IV of DLF City (earlier known as DLF Qutub Enclave Complex) along with the undivided pro-rata share only in the land underneath the said Building in which the said Apartment is situated for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,14,979.32 (Rs. Thirteen Lacs Fourteen Thousand nine hundred seventy nine and paise thirty two only) on the terms and conditions contained therein, price for increase in super area of the said apartment and escalation in the price of labour and building material etc. That the possession of the said Apartment has been handed over to the Vendee and the Vendee hereby confirms taking over possession of the said Apartment from the Vendors after satisfying himself/herself that the construction as also the various installations like electrification work, sanitary fittings, water and sewerage connection etc. have been made and provided in accordance with the drawings, designs and specifications and are in good order and condition and that the Vendee has no complaint or claim in respect of the area of said Apartment, any item of work, material, quality of work, installations etc. therein.
9. It has been mentioned in the Sale deed of Parking Space that: -
3. the Vendee upon taking possession of the said parking space has/have confirmed that he/she/they has/have no claim against the Vendors as to any item of work, material, quality of work and installations in the said parking space or on any other ground whatsoever and the said claims if any shall be deemed to have been waived. The Vendee confirms that all complaints and defects if any have been got removed by the Vendee from the vendors before taking possession.
4. That save and except in respect of the particular parking space No.PX022 purchased by the Vendee and conveyed on ownership basis the Vendee shall have no other claim, right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever in any other parking space, common/circulation areas inside the basement building Regency Park-II land, Building premises, construction material etc. The vendee agrees and assures the vendors that upon registration of this sale deed, he shall not make any claim pecuniary or otherwise or bring any action for refund of the sale price paid for the said parking space and the vendee agrees and confirms that sale price paid by him/her/them shall not be refundable upon registration of the Sale Deed under any circumstances.
10. It will appear from the above extracts from the sale deeds of Apartment and another Sale Deed of the Parking Space, that the claim of the complainants had already been settled and it was only thereafter that the sale deeds had been executed. The sale deed is a final document, and all matters will be deemed to have been settled, at the time of the sale deed. The Sale Deed should not have been executed, if any claims were outstanding. The aforesaid words in the Sale Deeds act as an estoppels against the complainants.
11. The complainants have also claimed damages on the ground that the accommodation provided had construction defects as mentioned above. Again it has to be mentioned that if there were any construction defects the complainants should not have taken possession in the year 2000, and should not have got the sale deed executed in the year 2007. They cannot now be allowed to go back, and claim damages of this nature.
12. What has been said above applies mutatis mutandis to the claim of parking charges and stamp duty and the fee for registration.
13. Complaint dismissed. Costs easy.
14. A copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost as per rule. The file be consigned thereafter to Record room.
Announced on 27th day of September 2013.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Tri