National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Sanjeev Malhotra on 13 June, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 855 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 23/02/2018 in Complaint No. 633/2017 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. VISION INDIA REALTORS PVT. LTD. & ANR. SHOW ROOM NO. 1-2, NIRWANA GREENS-2, NIRWANA SQUARE, CHANDIGARH-ROPAR ROAD, KHARAR. GREATER MOHALI. PUNJAB. 2. MR. SUMIT, DIRECTOR VISION INDIA REALTORS PVT. LTD. SHOW ROOM NO. 1-2, NIRWANA GREENS-2, NIRWANA SQUARE, CHANDIGARH-ROPAR ROAD, KHARAR. GREATER MOHALI. PUNJAB. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SANJEEV MALHOTRA R/O. C1A-57A, JANAKPURI. NEW DELHI-110058 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Devmani Bansal, Advocate For the Respondent : In person
Dated : 13 Jun 2018 ORDER JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The complainant/respondent who is an advocate by profession and is present in person, booked a residential flat with the appellant in a project namely 'Nirwana Greens-4' which the appellant was to develop at Kharar. Vide allotment letter dated 12.12.2012, flat no. 1612, in the aforesaid project was allotted to him for a consideration of Rs.16,75,000/-. He having already paid Rs.2,00,000/-, the balance payment was to be made as per the following installments:
Installment No. Due Date Amount
a) First 7.12.12 135000/-
b) Second 7.2.13 125625/-
c) Third 7.4.13 125625/-
d) Fourth 7.6.13 125625/-
e) Fifth 7.8.13 125625/-
f) Sixth 7.10.13 125625/-
g) Seventh 7.12.13 125625/-
h) Eighth 7.2.14 125625/-
i) Ninth 7.4.14 125625/-
j) Tenth 7.6.14 125625/-
k) Eleventh 7.8.14 125625/-
2. It is an admitted position that the complainant/respondent made timely payment of all the 11 installments. Vide letter dated 20.04.2015, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1,81,375/- from the complainant comprising a sum of Rs.83,750/- towards basic price balance, Rs.58,625/- towards service tax, Rs.30,000/- towards External Electrification Charges and Rs.9,000/- as IFMS (Interest Free Maintenance Security). The complainant was requested to pay the aforesaid amount so that the appellant could offer the possession of his flat. The delay in payment was to automatically lead to delay in possession of the flat. Since the aforesaid demand was not paid, a reminder letter dated 06.02.2016 was sent to the complainant after adding interest of Rs.29,020/- and thereby making a total sum of Rs.2,12,489/-. The payment demanded in the aforesaid reminder letter also having not been made, the appellant issued a final demand notice dated 25.03.2017 after including a sum of Rs.84.267/- towards interest and Rs.50,000/- towards Flat Holding Charges thereby making a total sum of Rs.3,32,392/-. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.
3. The complaint was resisted by the appellant which sought to justify the demand raised by it.
4. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 23.02.2018, directed as under:
"(i) OPs are directed to deliver the possession of the flat in question, complete in all respects as per the specifications incorporated in buyer's agreement dated 12.12.2012 within a period of 30 days from the date of Consumer Complaint No. 633 of 2017 12 receipt of the copy of the order passed by this Commission. At the time of delivery of the possession, the complainant will pay Service Tax, IFMS charges or any other charges due to him according to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
(ii) the OPs will pay interest on the deposited amount of Rs.15,91,245/- @ 9% p.a. from 7.8.2015 to 19.4.2017.
(iii) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment etc. for non-delivery of the possession within the agreed time.
(iv) to pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses."
Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Commission by way of this appeal.
5. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the completion certificate in respect of the project was obtained by the appellant on 15.03.2016. A copy of the communication dated 15.03.2016 from Municipal Council, Kharar has been placed on record. It is therefore, evident that the completion certificate having been received only on 15.03.2016, the appellant could not have offered legal possession of the apartment to the complainant at any time before that date. As noted earlier, the amount of Rs.1,81,375/- was demanded on 20.04.2015 and the amount of Rs.2,12,489/- was demanded on 06.02.2016. The complainant was requested to pay the aforesaid amount so that the appellant could offer the possession of the flat. The said offer of possession was meaningless being unlawful as the requisite completion certificate had not been obtained by that date. Moreover, in addition to the balance sale price and service tax, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards External Electrification Charges. As rightly found by the State Commission, the agreement between the parties did not provide for payment of External Electrification Charges, over and above the sale price of the flat. Therefore, demand of External Electrification Charges was illegal and the complainant was not bound to pay the same.
6. It has also been noticed by the State Commission that as per the agreement between the parties, the IFMS (Interest Free Maintenance Security) was payable within 30 days from the offer of possession. Since the possession could not have been offered vide letters dated 20.04.2015 and 06.02.2016, the demand of IFMS contained in the aforesaid letters would also be illegal and unjustified.
7. The appellant had received the completion certificate by the time the final demand notice dated 25.03.2017 was issued. However, the said notice also included demand for External Electrification Charges which were not payable by the complainant. Offering possession on the payment of charges which the flat buyer is not contractually bound to pay, cannot be considered to be a valid offer of possession. Moreover, no offer for possession was made in the possession letter dated 25.03.2017 which was in the nature of a notice informing the complainant that on his failure to pay the amount demanded therein, the allotment would be cancelled. Hence, even the final demand notice dated 25.03.2017 cannot be considered to be a valid offer of possession.
8. Since no valid offer of possession of the flat was made by the appellant to the complainant/respondent, the order passed by the State Commission is justified and does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER