State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Abdul Basit vs Dlf Universal Limited on 2 June, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of decision: 02.06.2006 Complaint No.129/03 Mr. Abdul Basit . Complainant S/o Late Abdul Quddus W-111, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048. Through Aditya Agarwal POA Versus M/s DLF Universal Limited . Opposite Party DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. Through its Managing Director CORAM Justice J.D. Kapoor . President Ms.Rumnita Mittal . Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.
Justice J.D. Kapoor , President(Oral) Though the complainant has paid the full sale consideration of Rs. 19,78,229/-, the OP has failed to hand over the possession of the flat & parking space booked by the complainant in the Regency Part II scheme constructed by OP. Accordingly the complainant has through this complaint sought the following reliefs:-
a) To direct the OP to hand over the possession to the complainant of the apartment No. Y 212 & Parking Regency Park II, DLF City,
b) To waive off illegal, arbitrary and unfair holding charges and interest thereof,
c) Alternatively, refund the amount paid alongwith the interest @ 24% p.a.
d) Allow compensation in the sum of Rs.
18,11,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment caused to the complainant by the OP and
e) Award costs of the complainant in favour of the complainant and against the OP.
2. The case of the complainant in nutshell is as under:-
3. That the complainant lured by the advertisement of O.P. booked a flat in the Regency Park-II and was allotted a residential unit apartment No. Y-212(PH) & Parking in Regency Park II, DLF City by the OP and the complainant and the OP signed an agreement dt. 27.5.95 at New Delhi. Under the said agreement the OP allotted the said apartment in the proposed building to be constructed by the OP. The basic sale price of the apartment was Rs. 19,78,229/-, external development charges Rs. 58,812/- and maintenance security Rs. 10,000/- and contingency security deposit Rs. 3,363/-.
4. That the complainant paid a sum of Rs.23,71,210/- by the year 1998 by demand drafts/cheques in favour of the OP. Inspite of having received the entire payment, the OP has not handed over possession of the apartment to the complainant and the complainant has not enjoyed the apartment for a single day. The price paid by him was actually more than the basic price of the apartment.
5. That the OP had whimsically, illegally, unfairly and unilaterally levied the exorbitant holding charges and interest and threatened verbally to the complainant to cancel the allotment of the apartment and forfeit a sum of Rs. 23,71,210/- in case of non-payment of illegal holding charges and interest thereon. In all the entire money of Rs.
23,71,210/- is with the OP whereas the OP had promised to hand over the possession of the residential apartment and parking abovesaid within four years at the time of booking/registration of the apartment.
6. That the agreement between the complainant and OP mentioned that complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 1,97,823/- being 10% of the sale price of the premises at the time of booking/registration for the purchase of the said apartment. The sale price of the said apartment was Rs. 12647.70 per sq.mtr. and the super area of the said apartment was 156.41 sq.mtrs.
7. That the complainant had submitted all the documents as required by the OP at the time of handing over the possession after due consultation and meeting with the officials of the OP and appointed Mr. Aditya Agrwal as his Power of Attorney by letter dt.29.7.2000. However, after lapse of four months vide letter dt. 29.11.00 the OP had returned the photographs, reason being the photographs had not been attested. Photographs were submitted with the consultation and advice of OP. Meanwhile OP kept on increasing the holding charges and interest thereon and pressurized him to clear the huge holding charges and interest. On the contrary, the complainant had already paid all the dues in the year 1998 and there was no requirement of submission of attested photographs.
8. The OP had deliberately delayed the possession by devising dubious means and adopting unfair practice with the sole objective of unjust enrichment the company at the cost of complainant.
9. Further that, in fact, the said apartment was not ready and the OP was not in a position to hand over the possession of the said apartment as the same was not completed and in inhabitable state by that time. By this act of OP it is clear that to hide their weakness and further to extort money from the complainant illegally O.P. had been avoiding the handing over of the possession to the complainant till date.
10. That the OP did not incorporate any condition with respect to handing over possession of the apartment to the complainant or any time frame. The agreement is silent and vague with respect to obligations of the OP for construction and handover of the apartment in the proposed building at the time of registration for the apartment or even at the time of execution of the agreement.
In these circumstances the standard agreement prepared by the OP for execution of sale agreement by the apartment allottees is unequal and unfair and is opposed to the public policy.
11. The OP had informed the complainant vide their letter dt.17.7.99 to take the possession of his said apartment as OP had obtained the completion certificate from the competent authority.
12. The OP has refuted the allegations of the complainant. Its version in brief is that as far as possession of the property is concerned, the OP had offered the possession of the same to the complainant in September, 1999 requesting him to remit Rs. 4,90,342/- including the stamp duty & registration charges latest by 17.12.99. The complainant was requested to remit the dues and complete the paper work also. As against the above dues, the complainant remitted a part payment of Rs. 1,60,582.41 on 5.5.2000 but failed to make the full payment as demanded by the OP. In view of the aforesaid, the total dues as on 30.4.05 against the property were as follows:-
S.L. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1. Delayed interest 96,982.00
2. Holding charges 5,72,925.00
3.
Stamp duty & Registration Charges 1,31,500.00 Total: 08,01,407.00
13. That as on date the complainant had paid Rs. 22,10,986.41 for the apartment and the OP had as per the agreement, given the rebate of compensation of Rs. 31,355/- to the complainant for delay in handing over the property in question which delay was beyond the control of the OP and the same had been duly taken note of in calculating the rebate aforesaid.
14. That the complainant never paid all the dues as detailed in letter dt.17.9.99. There was no delay on the part of the OP in handing over possession of the property in question but it was on account of non-payment of various charges on the part of the complainant duly covered under the agreement that the possession could not be delivered to the complainant.
15. As is apparent from the aforesaid conspectus of facts the complainant signed an agreement in the year 1995 whereas he paid the full consideration amount of Rs. 23,71,210/- in the year 1998. It is not understandable as to why the OP retained the documents including photographs for four long months and returned the same on the plea that the photograph was not attested one. This act of omission on the part of the OP proves deficiency in service beyond doubt. On account of its acts of omission and commission the OP wrongly continued increasing holding charges and interest thereon. This amounts to unfair trade practice.
16. According to the OP there was balance of Rs. 8,01,497/-. It appears that the OP in order to cover its deficiency in not completing construction as promised continued to detain the documents, photographs etc. for four months and continued increasing holding charges thereon and it was only in September, 1999 that the OP for the first time offered handing over of the possession. It is also not understandable as to why the demand in the year 1993-94 was raised the stamp duty and registration charges. OP was only entitled to ask the complainant to pay stamp duty, registration charges etc. by 17-12-1999 to issue the possession.
17. These are tactics to create circumstances to cover up the deficiencies by initially offering basic price at much lower rate and then raising demand month after month or year after year by charging holding charges, future interest and interest over interest etc. These tactics are adopted because every day prices of the property shoot up or increase and therefore the builders engaged in construction activity keep on making such demands under the guise of agreement between the parties which is highly unethical and strictly against the terms of contract and are excuses to make up the delay in construction of the flats.
18. However, taking over all view of the matter and according careful consideration to the rival claims of the parties and holding the O.P. guilty for deficiency in service in keeping up its schedule of construction and handing over the possession by the agreed period, we allow the complaint in the following terms:-
(i) That the OP shall handover the possession of the flat on payment of stamp duty and registration charges only within one month.
(ii) We award Rs.
5,000/- as cost of litigation.
19. Complaint is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
20. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
21. Announced on 2nd June, 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj