State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Manaoj Kumar Ray & Anr. vs Ms. Abv Vijayalakshmi on 4 August, 2015
Daily Order rtIN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 04.08.2015 First Appeal No. 173/2015 (Arising out of the order dated 23.09.2010 in Complaint Case No. 232/2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23 Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, New Delhi-110016) Sh. Manoj Kumar Ray Chairman Gardenia India Ltd. Plot No. 9, Sector-75, Sh. Sanjeev Sharma Gardenia India Ltd. Plot No. 9, Sector-75 Noida-201301 Sh. Sagar Saxena, Sales, MMS Gardenia Developers Pvt. ltd. C-56/5, Sector-62, Noida-201301 Gardenia Shelters Pvt. Ltd. E-16A, Sector 61, Noida ......Appellants VERSUS Ms. ABV Vijayalakshmi Tower-B, Flat No. 1105 Gardenia Grace, Sector-61 Noida-201301 .....Respondent CORAM N P Kaushik - Member (Judicial) S C Jain - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial) Judgment Present appeal is directed against the orders dt. 16.02.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum-VI, Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi. The complainant Ms. ABV Vijayalakshmi purchased 2BHK Flat from the OP/appellant. The complainant's grievance before the District Forum was that the sub-lease charges of Rs.1,72,500/- received by the OP/appellant was an unfair recovery. It was not included in the basic price. Second grievance was that due to delay in registration of the flat, circle rates stood revised by Noida Authorities resulting in the excess payment of Rs. 15,750/- per sq. ft. The complainant had to pay additional amount of Rs. 01,68,320/-. Lastly, the complainant submitted that the amount of Rs. 2 lacs charged for parking was meant for the covered space i.e. street parking and also for open parking. The OP/appellant has not paid the amount for compensation for delayed possession in full. Complainant alleged that the said amount of Rs. 76,475/- paid towards compensation was short of Rs. 5833/-. Another grievance of the complainant was that the date of completion of the project was tampered with in that it was shown as September 2012 instead of 31st March 2011. Lastly, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was charged as illegal gratification to be given to Noida Authorities towards registration process.
Ld. District Forum dealt with all abovesaid grievances put forth by the complainant.
Sub-lease charges of Rs. 01,72,500/- for registration of the flat were to be borne by the allottee i.e. the complainant. All the floor raised on the land are in the name of the developer who executes sub-lease in favour of different flat owners.
In relation to delay in delivering of possession and subsequent rise in stamp duty, Ld. District Forum observed that it was the complainant who had sought time for payment of dues. For this reason, there was a delay in handing over the possession.
Coming to the parking charges Ld. District Forum relied upon the case of the Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., vide Civil Appeal No. 2544 of 2010 dated 31.08.2010 decided by the Apex Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the stilt parking as well as open parking were a part of the common areas and could not be sold as part of flat.
Payment of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- for onward payment to Noida Authorities was the expenditure to be incurred on miscellaneous things like purchase of stamp papers, typing, attestation etc. In its grounds of appeal the appellant has not challenged the abovesaid findings of the District Forum on merits. The appellant/OP has submitted that the appellant-1,2 & 3 have no role to play as they did not enter into 'flat buyers agreement'.
Perusal of the entire record shows that the complainant had made the Director of the Gardenia India Ltd. as party to the complaint. Contention of the appellant/OP is that the complainant had dealt with Gardenia Shelter Pvt. Ltd. The letter of allotment dt. 28.08.2009 shows that the same was sent to the complainant by Gardenia India Ltd. Some of the letters have been written by Gardenia India Ltd. and whereas others were written by Gardenia Shelter Pvt. Ltd. Directors of these Companies are common. Gardenia India Ltd. is a flagship of the Company Gardenia Shelter Pvt. Ltd. Even if the complainant entered into an agreement with Gardenia Shelter, it does not make the complaint bad in the eyes of law. There is a brochure lying on record reading, Gardenia Group. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Complainant has filed a cross appeal bearing First Appeal No. 134/2015 seeking recovery of the amounts from the appellant/OP on various counts as discussed above. Since all the abovesaid points have been dealt with at length by the Ld. District Forum and upheld by this Commission, we need not dwell on the same again in the cross appeal. Our findings on all these points remain the same. First Appeal No. 134/2015 is accordingly disposed of.
(N P KAUSHIK) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (S C JAIN) MEMBER