Trials and tribulations in delhi state consumer commission

JUDGMENT BASED ON MISCONCEPTIONS

WHAT THE APPEAL SAYS?

Page-1. S.No.1

The complainant’s grievance before the Dist. Forum was that the Sub-Lease Charges of Rs.1,72,500/- received by the Opp/Appellant was an unfair Recovery.  It was not included in the Basic Price.    

On the other hand, the Complainant all along asserted in the Appeal that the sub-lease charges were included in the Basic Price itself and this was never shown in the Payment Plan separately. It was a rude shock that this amount was demanded at the time of final payment. This was not a small amount not to be shown in the payment plan. A specific example with solid proof furnished to the Commission Wherever it was not Included in the Basic price, it was shown separately in the Payment Schedule in respect of many others. Member (J) conveniently overlooked the contents in the Appeal in a Cavalier manner.

Page…2 S.No.1 & 4

Second grievance was that due to delay in registration of the flat, circle rates stood revised by the Noida Authorities resulting in the Excess payment of Rs.15,750/- sq.ft The Complainant had to pay additional amount of Rs.01,68,320/- In relation to delay in delivering of possession and subsequent rise in stamp duty,  Ld. Dist. Forum observed that it was Complainant who had sought time for payment of dues.  For this reason, there was a delay in handing over the possession.

Member (Judicial) failed to go thru the ultimatum            served by the Complainant to the Builder vide email dt.08.5.12

for giving immediate possession. In response, the Realtor for the first time informed vide email dt.09-5-12 that the flat shall be ready for possession by 30th June, 2012 Similarly, the Complainant herself chased the issue of Registration like a shadow vide email dt.29.9.2012 for taking up registration without any further delay.  Moreover, Realtor could get Completion Certificate from the Noida Development  Authority on 10th September,’12 only.

The Advt. of Realtor shows that the Flats were ready for occupation in the year 2013

Only! Further, along with all other flat owners, registration of

complainant’s flat was also done in batches and at no time, the Complainant expressed financial crunch for Registration. Member (J) in a slip shod manner without studying the case arrived at conclusions.

Page No.2 S.No.1

The OP/Appellant has not paid the amount for compensation for delayed possession In full. Complaint alleged that the said Amount of Rs.76,475/- paid towards Compensation was short of Rs.5,833/-.

This, once again, clearly establishes that Member (J) did not bother to go thru the Appeal and jumped into hasty conclusions. Complainant’s grouse was that Rs.5,833/-@ 18% recovered on the pretext of delayed payment of installments. It is pertinent to point out that the payment was linked to the progress of const-   ruction.  Construction was stalled due to Income Tax raid and sealing of project site; also due to diversion of work force to other Projects. Therefore, rescheduling of payments was done for which Realtor has given written approval.  Member (J) failed to take notice of this.

Page…2…S.No.1& Page No.3 S.No.6

An amount of Rs.25,000/-   was charged as illegal gratification to be given to Noida Authorities towards Registration process.    Payment of the amount of Rs.25,000/- for       It was intended to be   onward   payment the expenditure to be incurred on miscella- neous things like purchase of stamp papers,    Typing, attestation etc. Amount in cash was

collected without a Receipt against RBI Rules. Collection of same

No where it was stated by the Complainant that the bribe was meant for Noida Authorities. It was to be paid to the Sub-Registrar, Noida as indicated by the Realtor Co. The Complainant has raised the following objections in her Appeal  :-

How can a large sum of Rs.25,000/- can be collected in cash without issuing a Receipt against RBI Rules?

How can the same amount can be collected uniformly from all categories of Flats Viz; HIG, MIG and LIG without different norms?

From influential people, this slush money was not collected. Instead of finding fault with the Realtor, it is atrocious as to how the State Commission has given its seal of approval and encouraged this malpractice which generates  black money in the country.

Page No.4  S.No.6

Complainant has filed a cross appeal bearing First Appeal No.134/2015 seeking recovery of amounts as discussed above. Since all the above said points have been dealt with at length by the Ld. District Forum and upheld by this Commission, we need not dwell on the same again in the cross appeal.   Our findings on all these points remain the Same.  First Appeal No.134/15 is Accordingly disposed of. 

The Appeal of the Complainant was disposed off without providing an opportunity to the Complainant to make an argument and he was snubbed repeatedly. The Realto’rs appeal was time barred but the objection was overruled and accepted without insisting for notorized application for condonation of delay.  The Member (J) of Court No.2 Shri N P Kaushik pressurized the Complainant to forego Rs.One Lakh from the Relief awarded by the Dist. Forum in the open court instead of deciding the case on merits.  The Advocate of the Realtor readily agreed to refund this amount in cash only and at the end made volte-face and refused to make any payment.  As such, Member (J) was left with no other option except to uphold  New Delhi Forum’s Order as it was based on Apex Court’s  Ruling.  The Complainant’s Appeal was filed vide F.A.No.134/15 on 13.3.2015 whereas the Builder’s Appeal was filed later Vide F.A.No.173/15 on 31-3-2015                                                But the Realtor’s Appeal was given priority and taken up first.