Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

          The complainant was in need of a suitable flat which had all the facilities and situated on the main road for proper connection with other cities. The complainant came across the advertisement of Shri Sai Heritage Apartment which was meeting all his requirements. The complainant visited the construction site in July 2014 and saw sample flats, wherein he found that the construction quality was good and moreover the size of apartment was also satisfactory. The office of the opposite party informed the complainant that almost all the flats in the aforesaid apartment were already booked and if he do not book or purchase the flat within one month, then no flat will be available in the discounted offer price. The office of the opposite party further informed that only one flat on the 3rd floor is left meeting the requirements of the complainant. The office of the opposite party also assured that the possession of the apartment will be delivered to the complainant within 15 months from the date of agreement and after the execution and registration of the sale deed. Since the complainant was in need of a suitable apartment, therefore, he decided to purchase the flat on 3rd floor bearing flat no.G-301 in Block/Tower G in the said apartment measuring 960 s. ft.

          From time to time, the complainant requested the opposite party to complete the construction work within earliest possible time but it has not been done. The complainant again visited the site and found that poor quality of stone and cement are being used. The complainant then made a complaint at the office of the opposite party but they did not pay any attention. Again a demand has been raised by the opposite party and the complainant deposited Rs.1 lac through NEFT on 27.6.2017.

          The complainant again went to the site and found that sub-standard materials are being used.  The sample flat shown to the complainant was of high quality but here sub-standard quality material was being used. Till date the construction was not completed i.e. after a lapse of 3 years, the opposite party failed to construct the flat. The complainant ultimately in August, 2017 requested the opposite party to return his money but the attitude of the opposite party got completely changed and the opposite party said that they will never return the money.

The complainant was satisfied with the sample flat and its construction quality. The complainant was informed that price would escalate is wrong and denied. The complainant was offered the best market price prevailing at that time and he had by his own wilful choice choosing to confirm the booking and was not under any pressure. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. It is denied that no construction at subjective site had taken place in November, 2014. The respondent has for ever been committed to timely delivery schedule however it was complainant who has time and again failed to make timely payment. There is no specific time and date mentioned of the so-called alleged visit of the complainant which it shall be sufficient to negate their case. It is denied that the complainant never visited the office of the respondent or any so-called complaint was raised by the complainant.
The allegation that there was variation in sample flat and flat allotted to the complainant is wrong and denied. Any delay if at all is on the part of the complainant due to untimely payment which was the basic essence of allotment. There is no deficiency on part of the respondent. It is the respondent company who has suffered loss of reputation because of baseless allegation levelled by the complainant. So the complaint case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Ashutosh Sharma. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party though the opposite party has appeared and has filed his written statement. We have perused the pleadings, evidences and documents on record.