State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Parveen Sharma vs Sneh Deep Aggarwal, on 4 June, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 258 of 2014
Date of institution: 14.3.2014
Date of Decision : 4.6.2014
Dr. Parveen Sharma wife of Dr. Braham Sharma, R/o Flat No. 110-B,
Garden Heights, Sirhind-Rajpura by pass, Patiala, through its duly
authorised signatory Dr. Braham Sharma.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Sneh Deep Aggarwal, owner of Pavni Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Regd.
Office E-52, New Manglapuri, Mandi Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi
110 030.
2. Arjun Aggarwal, Director, Pavni Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office
E-52, New Manglapuri, Mandi Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi 110
030.
3. Mr. Sachin Gupta, M.D. Pavni Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office E-
52, New Manglapuri, Mandi Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi 110 030.
4. Estate Manager, Pavni Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Garden Heights New
DMW Rajpura-Sirhind Bypass Road, Patiala.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated 26.2.2014
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
FIRST APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2014 2
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Brahm Sharma, Representative
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/complainant(hereinafter called "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 26.2.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 188 dated 30.5.2013 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. The complainant had booked one Apartment with the Ops having Super Area of 1740 sq. ft. The flat/apartment was consisting of three bed rooms and three toilets. He was allotted Unit No. 110, First Floor, Block B and possession of the flat was delivered on 3.6.2011. Sub-standard material was alleged to have been used for which separate complaint was filed in which damages of Rs. 2 lacs had been awarded to the complainant. In the present complaint, it has been alleged that against the area of 1740 sq. ft., the covered area is just 1485 sq. ft., short by 255 sq. ft. and Club Membership Fee was taken on pick and choose basis, accordingly the value of 255 sq. ft. @ Rs. 1500/- sq. ft. amounting to Rs. 3,82,500/- alongwith interest and litigation expenses and refund of Club Membership Fee was called for.
3. Only OP No. 4 had contested the complaint. Apart from legal objections it has been stated that the super area agreed between the parties was 1740 sq. ft. and accordingly, that area has FIRST APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2014 3 been given. It was denied that area was short by 255 sq. ft.. It was also denied that Club Membership Fee of Rs. 25,000/- was on pick and choose basis. Out of 70 flats, 26 owners was not deposited the Club Fee, however, the Club facilities are given to the Members, therefore, there is no merit in the complaint and it be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. CA, affidavit of V.K. Goyal, Architect(Retd.) Ex. CB, affidavit of Brahm Sharma Ex. CC, affidavit of Dr. Raj Kumar Gupta Ex. CD and documents Ex. C-1 to C-12. On the other hand, opposite party No. 4 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Lt. Col (Retd.) B.S. Guram, Ex. OPA and documents Ex. OP-1 to OP-26.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by OP No.4, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum with regard to the super area of the flat observed that carpet area and super area are different connotations carpet area is the covered area whereas super area includes the carpet area, the area in the lobby, lift, staircase and corridors and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "DLF Limited Vs. Manmohan Lowe and others" Civil Appeal No. 10930 of 2013 decided on 10.12.2013 wherein definition of the Apartment, Common area facilities have been defined and the super area has also been defined. Apart from the carpet area of the apartment, owner will proportionately share the common area in the FIRST APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2014 4 building i.e. stair, ramps, walk ways, lobbies, lift wells, shafts and similar provisions have been made in Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995. The judgment relied upon by the complainant titled as "Naharchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.", Civil Appeal Nos. 2545 , 48, 49 and 56 of 2010 of the Hon'ble Apex Court which was discussed in "DLF Limited Vs. Manmohan Lowe and others"(supra) and was not relied upon by the District Forum. Accordingly, it was observed that agreement between the parties was with regard to the super area and super area of the flat was 1747.13 sq. ft. whereas the agreement was for 1740 sq. ft., therefore, no area is short. The super area has also been defined at the site http://consulting niketan.wordpress.com/ 2012/02/20/carpet-area-built-up-area-common-area,super-built-up- area-explained/ wherein it has been observed as under:-
"Super Built-up Area: Most builders and developers often use this term to convey the area of the house or apartment. Super built-up area includes carpet area, the area occupied by the walls and your apartment's proportionate share of the common spaces of the building such as the lobby, lift, staircase and corridors. Some builders even include the terrace, pump house, security room, the area occupied by the compound wall of the building. The total area of these is divided by the number of flats in proportion of their size and the result is added to the super built-up area".
7. Therefore, complete area as agreed between the parties was given to the complainant. So far as Membership fee is concerned, although some of the Members of the flats may not be the Members of the Club but in the complaint there is no allegations that there is any deficiency in the services of the Club, therefore, once the FIRST APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2014 5 club payment has been made then the complainant could only point out about the deficiency in services. Otherwise club facilities have been provided by the Builder as per the scheme, therefore, he cannot raise any grouse with regard to the Club Membership Fee. Accordingly, the learned District Forum did not see any merit in the complaint and the same was dismissed.
8. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended that the learned District Forum had overlooked the report of V.K. Goyal, Architect (Retd.) and wrongly relied upon the report of Karamjit Singh, Architect. The findings with regard to super area have been wrongly given and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been wrongly charged as club charges.
9. Firstly with regard to the super area. In case we go through the allotment agreement vide which his flat No. B-110, Category A, Tower No. B has been allotted and in the area it has been mentioned as super area 1740 sq. ft.. So far as the report of V.K. Goyal, Architect is concerned, which the complainant says has been wrongly rejected, it gives only about the carpet area and not the super area. Even Karamjit Singh and Karan Ritu Associates in their report dated 12.11.2013 Ex. OP-6 has mentioned flat area 1449 sq. ft, balcony area 105.17 sq. ft., circulation area 192.46 sq. ft.. The learned District Forum has referred to the report of the Architect Karamjit Singh, who was subjected to cross examination in which he explained the super area as area of each and every part of the building constructed, which includes the area of the flat, circulation area like stair case, lift, corridors, balcony, mumty and it has been so FIRST APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2014 6 given in the internet http://consulting niketan.wordpress.com stated above, therefore, certainly, there is a difference between carpet area and super area and the agreement between the parties was with regard to the super area and complete super area has been allotted to the complainant as agreed between the parties. Therefore, now the complainant cannot rake up the issue with regard to the super area and carpet area as nowhere it is mentioned in the agreement what will be the carpet area, otherwise it has been given as 1449 sq. ft.. Therefore, when the allotment is in accordance with the agreement between the parties with regard to the super area and same area has been given to the complainant, therefore, the learned District Forum was justified to say that super area as agreed has been allotted to the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in the area of the allotment as alleged by the complainant.
10. So far as club fee of Rs. 25,000/-. It is according to the terms and conditions and agreement. It has been mentioned in Clause B (10)(c) and the same has been charged accordingly. In case some of the Members have not adopted for Membership then the amount cannot be refunded to the complainant. In case some of the Members have adopted for Membership once he had paid to the Club Membership Fee then he can challenge, if no facility of the Club has been provided whereas the same has not been challenged, therefore, the Club Fee has also been charged as per the terms and conditions of the allotment agreement. We are of the opinion that the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum are correct findings. The representative of the complainant/appellant was not FIRST APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2014 7 able to make out any case on the basis of which notice could be issued to the respondents, therefore, we dismiss the appeal in limine.
11. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 28.5.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
June 4, 2014. (Harcharan Singh Guram)
as Member