Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"i.     Emaar MGF Land Ltd. and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, [First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decoded on 29.9.2014]   and ii.     Emaar MGF Land Ltd. and another Vs. Karnail Singh and another, First Appeal No.342 of 2014 decoded on 25.7.2014  

15.    The State Commission in its impugned order  has held that respondents are consumer and while allowing the complaints, it further observed;

"17.    The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Opposite Parties could increase the area of the apartment, or not. No doubt, the Counsel for the complainant submitted that, as per the terms and conditions contained in the Apartment  Buyer`s Agreement dated 17.06.2008, Annexure C/4, the Opposite Parties could not increase the area, of the apartment. Whereas, on the other hand, the stand of the Opposite Parties, was to the effect, that they could increase the area, even beyond 10%, by giving due notice to the complainant, and, as such, they vide letter dated 23.08.2013 Annexure C/9, intimated the complainant that the area of apartment had been revised, and increased to 1908 square feet, from 1550 square feet, as a result whereof, its price was enhanced from Rs.48,65,580.50Ps., to Rs.60,31,047.98Ps, and, as such demand of the same was raised, towards the difference of amount thereof. For proper determination, of this question, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant Clauses 1.2 and 1.3 of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 17.06.2008, Annexure C-4, which are reproduced below:-