Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. V.M. Chaudhry, Presiding Member and Mr. M.D. Gadhavi, Member
KAUSHIKKUMAR AMRITLAL VYAS - Appellant
Versus
ANANYA CORPORATION - Respondent
Complaint Case No. 40 of 2015
Decided on : 17-07-2017
Mrs. R.P. Trivedi, Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. Dhawal Shah, Advocate, for the Respondent/Opponent
The rights of the complainant in relation to possession, rent payment, and reimbursement for additional work were determined based on the Consumer Protection Act and previous judgments.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Possession of Flat - Section 17 - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17] - The court discussed the Banakhat Agreement, possession of the flat, payment of rent, reimbursement for additional alterations, and change of scheme name. The court relied on previous judgments to determine the rights of the complainant in relation to possession, rent payment, and reimbursement for additional work.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a flat for residential purposes, paid the full amount, but the opponent failed to provide possession as per the agreement. The opponent unilaterally changed the construction plan and demanded additional payment. The complainant sought possession, rent payment, reimbursement for alterations, and a change in the scheme name.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opponent failed to provide possession as agreed and unilaterally changed the construction plan. The court ruled in favor of the complainant for possession, rent payment, and against reimbursement for additional work.
Issues: Possession, Rent Payment, Reimbursement for Additional Work, Change of Scheme Name
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments to determine the rights of the complainant in relation to possession, rent payment, and reimbursement for additional work.
Final Decision: The complaint was partly allowed, directing the opponent to hand over possession of the flat, pay rent, and the complainant to pay stamp duty and maintenance.
ORDER
M.D. Gadhavi, Member - Kaushikkumar Amritlal Vyas and Purvi Kauahikkumar has filed the complaint before the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under Section 17 against the Ananya Corporation, partner Amit Natuhhai Patel, Ahmedabad.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
(a) The complainant has purchased the flat for the residential purposes from the opponent and opponent entered into register Banakhat Agreement, on 13.3.2013 [Page Nos. 13 to 30]. The value of the flat is decided at Rs. 48,00,000 and complainant has paid the entire amount of Rs. 48,00,000. The opponent has agreed to give possession of the flat as per the area cost and specifications described in the Banakhat Agreement before 15.11.2013. The opponent has also agreed in an agreement to pay Rs. 25,000 rent per month from 15.11.2013 till date of the possession of the flat. But as per the promise of agreement the opponent has not given possession of the flat on 15.11.2013. The opponent has unilaterally changed the plan of the constructions area in the month of May, 2013 and sent new plan to the complainant. The complainant has not agreed with the new plan. Complainant has adhered to his agreement and denied the new plan and replied by e-mail [pg, 31 to 34].
(b) The opponent had wrongly included the amount of Rs. 6,80,72 for the cost of additional area and after manipulating so many things the opponent had issued notice to the complainant for additional payment of Rs, 16,29,857, as per the Banakhat Agreement instead of giving possession within the time limit opponent has raised so many complications. Moreover the complainant has spent more money which the builder needed to be reimbursed. The complainant has spent Rs. 3.80.000 for changes in the flat and this amount is required to be reimbursed from the opponent.
(c) The opponent has neither given the possession of flat as agreed by Banakhat Agreement nor paid rent. The complainant went for possession of flat with sale deed as agreed in agreement as full payment of flat was paid in advance by the complainant with Rs. 48,00,000.
(d) The complainant is residing in uncomfortable house. Therefore the complainant has prayed to pass order of possession of flat and as per the agreement they are ready to pay stamp duty + Rs. 1,00,000 for maintenance, pass an order that opponent should pay the rent of Rs. 25,000 per month from 15,11.2013 as agreed by opponent of 17 months i.e. Rs. 4,25,000 till date and then after Rs. 25,000 per month till date of actual possession, and to pass the order to reimburse the difference of money of Rs. 3,80,000 which was spent on behalf of the builder for additional alternation in Kitchen and Bathroom, to pass an order to change the scheme name from Anushri Icon-11 To Amrattara Avenue and pass an order for mental harassment and order to pay Rs. 2,00,000 and cost Rs. 50,000.
3. Opponent Ananya Corporation has submitted the written statement and list of documents before the Commission (Pg. Nos. 47 to 63). The complainant has submitted the rejoinder affidavit against the statement and rejoinder. Reply of application dated 29.9.2015 (Pg. Nos. 114 of 123) and submitted the list of documents with rejoinder also (Pg. Nos. 123 (A) to 123(G). The opponent has submitted additional submission for clarification with reference to the rejoinder of the complainant where the rejoinder complainant has put some extra points which were not included in the original complaint therefore the opponent has submitted the additional submission with reference to the points of rejoinder. The opponent has also submitted the list of documents also with additional submission. Additional submission and the list of documents can be found at Pg. Nos. 124 to 172.
4. We heard learned Advocate Mr. R.P. Trivedi for complainant and learned Advocate Mr. Dhawal Shah for respondents. We perused all relevant documents which is submitted by the complainant in their complaint and rejoinder and written arguments and perus
