National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ansals Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. ... vs Vikramjit Singh & Anr. on 13 November, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4267 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 30/09/2014 in Appeal No. 313/2014 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. ANSALS LOTUS MELANGE PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE:A-2 DHANWAN DEEP BUILDING, 6 JANTAR MANTAR ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. VIKRAMJIT SINGH & ANR. HOUSE NO-4558-A, SECTOR-70 MOHALI (SAS NAGAR) PUNJAB 2. DR.PARAMDEEP KAUR, HOUSE NO-4558-A,SECTOR-70 MOHALI (SAS NAGAR) PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 13 Nov 2019 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The complainants booked a residential apartment with the petitioner company in a project namely 'Orchard County' which the OP was to develop on Kharar Landran Road in Mohali. Apartment No.31, TF was allotted to the complainants for a consideration of Rs.29,75,000/- and parking charges. The parties then executed an agreement on 22.09.2009, incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the said allotment. As per clause 10 of the agreement, the possession was likely to be delivered to the complainants within 24 months of its execution. The possession therefore, ought to have been offered by 22.09.2011. The petitioners demanded an additional payment of Rs.2,57,508/- on account of increase in the area of the apartment alongwith tax, besides demanding Rs.1,81,817/- towards interest on the delayed payment. Being aggrieved, the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner, primarily on the ground that there had been increase in the area of the apartment and therefore, the complainants were liable to make additional payment on account of increase in its area. The demand of interest on account of delayed payment was also sought to be justified by the petitioner.
3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 04.08.2014, directed as under:
To waive off the interest on delayed payment amounting to Rs.1,81,817/-.
Not to demand the excess amount of Rs.2,57,508/- plus Rs.7,957/- on the pretext of increase in the super area.The demand of increase in the super area shall be recalculated by the OPs on the basis of the measurement report of Mr. Rajnish Walia, Architect and the same shall be sent to the complainants for payment without addition of any interest, if the said demand on account of increase the super area is not paid by the complainants within a period of one month of the receipt of the same, then the OPs shall be entitled to recover interest on the delayed payment at the agreed rate.
To make payment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainants on account of mental agony, harassment caused to them and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
To make the payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants towards cost of litigation.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.
5. The main issue which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to an additional payment on account of increase in the super area of the apartment. A perusal of the order passed by the District Forum would show that an Architect was appointed by the said Forum to inspect the apartment including the open areas and give its report as to whether there had been any increase in the area of the apartment or not. The said Architect reported that there was a marginal increase in the area of the apartment, the said increase being from 1525 sq. ft. to 1562.51 sq. ft. The case of the petitioner is that the increase was much more than what the Architect who inspected the apartment had reported and therefore, the objections which they had filed to the report of the Architect, ought to have been allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the objections which the petitioner had filed. The below table shows the area of the apartment as computed by the Court Commissioner and the area as pleaded by the petitioner company.
AREA COMPARISON DESCRIPTION AREA AS PER LOCAL COMMISSIONER AREA AS PER OPs Sq. m.
S. ft.
Sq. m.
S. ft.
Flat area 122.421 1317.73 111.979 1205.34 Balcony 16.232 174.49 15.392 165.68 Common area of lobby, corridor, lift, stairs etc. proportionally added to the flat 12.014 129.32 Area of Mumty, Machine rooms, OHT, Arch features proportionally added to the flat 6.509 70.29 9.895 106.51 Area of Common Services (Substation, UG Tank, Pump Room, Guard & Meter Room) 0 0 4.7 50.59 Total Super Area of Flat 145.162 1562.51 153.98 1657.44 It would be seen from the aforesaid comparison that the Architect who inspected the spot, reported higher flat area but the balcony area/common area and mumty area, were found to be lower than the area claimed by the petitioner company. Admittedly, no Architect was produced by the petitioner company before the District Forum to rebut the report submitted by the Architect who was appointed as a Court Commissioner. As a result, the report submitted by the Court Commissioner remained unrebutted. Even otherwise, no justification has been shown for rejecting the report of the Court Commissioner which was based upon the spot inspection carried out by him. The fairness of the Court Commissioner finds reflection in the fact that the flat area reported by him was more than the flat area claimed by the petitioner company. Therefore, I see no justification for rejecting the report of the Court Commissioner and therefore, the order passed by the fora below which was based upon the report of the Local Commissioner, to the extent it sets asides the demand on account of the alleged excess area and directs its recalculation on the basis of the report of the Architect, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
6. As regards the direction for waiving the interest on delayed payment and awarding compensation quantified at Rs.1 lac, the facts and circumstances of the case fully justify the directions given by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission. The possession of the flat ought to have been offered by September 2011. The petitioner company raised an additional demand on account of the alleged increase in the super area which it could justify only to a limited extent. During the course of hearing, I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the requisite Occupancy Certificate in respect of the apartment in question had been obtained by the petitioner company or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner expresses his ignorance with respect to the date on which the Occupancy Certificate was obtained. Not only did the petitioner made a highly inflated demand on account of increase in the super area of the flat, the possession came to be delivered to the complainants only in August/September 2015. The aggregate amount of interest on delayed payment and compensation comes to less than Rs.3 lacs. Considering the delay in delivering possession of the apartment to the complainants, the compensation of less than Rs.3 lacs cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable by any standard and in fact, can possibly be termed as inadequate, considering the extent of the delay. However, since the orders passed by the fora below have not been challenged by the complainant, the same having been challenged only by the petitioner company.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the Revision Petition which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER