Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 19 January, 2016
12. So far as the objection of the opposite party that the
complaint is time barred is concerned, it is relevant to mention that
Consumer Complaint No.586 of 2017 13
after taking possession of the flat, in question, the complainants had
been writing letters to the opposite parties regarding charging of
additional amount for increase in the area of the flat. They also issued
legal notice dated 07.07.2015, Ex.C-8, to the opposite party in this
regard. Thereafter, they filed Consumer Complaint No.469 of 2015
before District Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh, which was dismissed as
withdrawn, vide order dated 30.12.2016, Ex.C-10, in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission rendered in Ambrish
Kumar Shukla's case. Thereafter, the complainants filed CC No.341 of
2017 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
U.T., Chandigarh, which was also dismissed as withdrawn, vide order
dated 24.04.2017, Ex.C-11. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed
in July, 2017. Thus, it cannot be said that the present complaint is time
barred.
Section 11 in Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 24A in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
M/S.G.G. Associates & Ors. vs Commodore Ravindra Kumar Narad & Anr. on 29 January, 2014
6. Learned counsel for the complainants vehemently
contended that the opposite party increased the super area of the flat,
in question, without the consent of the complainant or issuing any
notice to him. Initially, the area of the flat, in question, was 1525 sq.ft.,
as is evident from Allotment Letter, Ex.C-2, which has been
subsequently increased to 1657 sq.ft., as mentioned in Statement of
Consumer Complaint No.586 of 2017 9
Account, Ex.C-5. Thus, there was increase of 132 sq.ft. in the total
area of the said flat. It was further contended that the complainants got
measured the area of the flat from the competent Architect, who vide
his report, Ex.C-12, has calculated the total area of the said flat as
1587.291 sq.ft. Even if the said increase in the area is taken into
consideration, then the complainants could have been charged only for
62.291 sq.ft. area which was actually increased, but the opposite
parties have wrongly and excessively charged the complainants by
taking the increase of 132 sq.ft. Learned counsel further contended
that the area cannot be increased, in view of Section 11 of Punjab
Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, "PAPRA"),
without the consent of the allottee. Identical situation arose in M/s G.G.
Associates & 2 Ors. v. Commodore Ravindra Kumar Narad & Anr.
Revision Petition No.1647 of 2014 decided on 16.10.2014 by the
Hon'ble National Commission, in which it was held that the builder
cannot affect changes in the area of the building without the consent of
the allottee. It was further contended that car parking and IFMS
charges are also not chargeable from the complainants. The opposite
party failed to produce any evidence in support of its pleadings, despite
availing sufficient number of opportunities and its defence was struck
off. The opposite party committed deficiency in service by increasing
the area of the flat, without the consent of the complainants. Hence,
the complaint is liable to be allowed and all the directions, as prayed
for therein, are liable to be issued to the opposite party.
Narinder Pal Singh Rekhi vs Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd. on 24 April, 2017
18. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.587 of 2017
(Narinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Anr. v. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects
Consumer Complaint No.586 of 2017 15
Pvt. Ltd.), the complainants were allotted flat No.7, First Floor, vide
Allotment Letter dated 02.07.2009, Ex.C-2; in which the super built
area of the flat was mentioned as 1525 sq.ft. and rate per sq.ft. was
mentioned as ₹2,098.36P. The total price of the flat was fixed as
₹32,00,000/-. The opposite party informed the complainants that super
built area of the flat had been increased from 1525 sq.ft. to 1657 sq.ft.;
for which an additional amount of ₹2,76,983/-, along with ₹8,559/- as
Service Tax, was to be paid by them. The possession of the flat was to
be given only after the deposit of the above said additional amounts.
Accordingly, the complainants paid the said amounts in good faith, vide
receipt Ex.C-4. However, the possession of the flat was given to the
complainants, without proper infrastructure, as there is no sufficient
parking space in front of the flat. Quality of construction is sub-
standard, as there is seepage on the walls and wooden flooring is
decaying. Moreover, the promised facilities, as mentioned above, have
also not been provided. The complainants wrote letters dated
18.06.2014 and 25.05.2015, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6, lodging protest
against the charging of above additional amount towards increase in
the area of the flat. They also issued legal notice dated 10.02.2016,
Ex.C-7, to the opposite party seeking refund of the excess amount.
The complainants initially filed complaint against the opposite party
before District Forum, U.T. Chandigarh on 07.06.2016, which was
dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 08.12.2016, with liberty to
file fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum. Thereafter, the
complainant filed complaint (CC/340/2017) before the State Consumer
Consumer Complaint No.586 of 2017 16
Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, which was also
dismissed as withdrawn, as per order Ex.C-9. Thus, by way of this
complaint, the complainants sought following directions to the opposite
party:
1