Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Sandeep Sharma —Complainant
versus
M/s. Susheela Homes & Properties Pvt.
Ltd. and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.42 of 2019
Decided on 20.11.2020
For the Complainant: In person
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Karan Mathur and Ms. Aditi Phatak, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. directed to be paid to complainant for delay in handing over of possession of flat.
Headnote:
Allotment of flat—Alternative allotment at a higher price—Scope—Complainant booked a three bed room flat with the opposite party by paying a booking amount of Rs. 3,54,414.60/-—Sale price of flat alongwith independent parking lot was agreed at Rs. 24,22,500/-—Due to additional cost incurred, opposite party subsequently given option to complainant to take refund of booking amount with interest or in the alternative allotment at a higher price—Initial allotment of flat stood terminated on adjustment of Rs. 3,54,000/- towards the cost of new flat—Thus, complainant not entitled to any interest or any compensation in respect of first transaction entered into between the parties—So far as, new flat allotted to complaint is concerned, admittedly possession of the flat has already been taken by complainant on 18.9.2012—Opposite party also directed to provide parking lot meant for parking of two cars to the complainant—As per agreement possession of flat was to be delivered to complainant by 12.12.2011 but possession could be handed over by 18.9.2012—Then for aforesaid delay between 12.12.2011 and 18.9.2012, compensation of Rs. 10.000/- p.m. directed to be paid to complainant—However, house tax and other dues directed to be paid by complainant—Directions issued. (Paras 11 to 25)
Result: Complaint disposed of.
ORDER (ORAL)
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—On 13.3.2006, the complainant booked a three bed room flat with the opposite party in Phase-II of Susheela Sea Winds Complex at Vaddem, Vasco-da-Gama paying a booking amount of Rs.3,54,414.60. Flat No.419 was allotted to him on the 4th floor of the building and an agreement dated 1.5.2006 was executed between the parties. The sale price of the flat alongwith independent parking lot was agreed at Rs.24,22,500/-.
2. Vide Email dated 14.3.2007, the opposite party informed the complainant that for the reasons stated in the Email, they had not been able to start construction of the flat and, therefore, if he did not wish to continue, they could return his money with interest. Vide Email dated 4.6.2007, the opposite party informed the complainant that due to additional cost incurred by them in acquiring a narrow strip of land on the northern side of the property, they had changed the plans and the apartments in the new block were priced at Rs.25,000/- per sq.mtr. + Rs.1,00,000/- for the stilted car parking. The complainant was given offer to take apartment in the new block at Rs.22500/- per sq.mtr. + Rs.75,000/- for the stilted car parking. He was also given option to take refund of the booking amount with interest. The complainant raised some queries vide his reply Email dated 5.6.2007 and also asked whether the opposite party was interested in selling him another flat in the new block at the new rates with a little larger space. Thereafter, vide letter dated 20.12.2008, the opposite party informed the complainant that the entire block in which booking was made by him had ceased to exit and therefore they were returning full amount of Rs.354414/- paid by him. The complainant responded vide letter dated 9.2.2009 seeking reasons for the change and also stated that the cheque referred in the letter was not found enclosed. Vide letter dated 17.2.2009, the opposite party maintained that a cheque had been enclosed by them to their letter dated 10.12.2008 but no fresh cheque was enclosed to the letter dated 17.2.2009. It is thus evident that the opposite party unilaterally scrapped the block in which the allotment had been made by it to the complainant and though it had offered to refund the amount paid by him with interest or in the alternative allotment in the new block at a higher price, the interest on the amount of Rs.3,54,414/- was not even offered to the complainant along with the letter dated 10.12.2008. Moreover, despite the complainant claiming that no cheque for the amount of Rs.354414/- had been annexed, the opposite party did not send a fresh cheque for that amount to the complainant.
3. Eventually, the complainant accepted allotment of flat No.5G in the project and executed an agreement dated 13.7.2011. The price of which was payable in the following manner:-
| “Schedule-III Schedule of Payments | |
| Details of payment | Total |
| On booking | 25,00,000/ |
| Less : Paid earlier | 3,54,000/ |
| Bal to be paid by 15th July 2011 | 21,46,000/ |
| By 31st August 2011 | 6,75,000/ |
| By 30th September 2011 | 6,75,000/ |
| By 31st October 2011 | 6,75,000/ |
| By 30th November 2011 | 1,71,815/ |
| Total | 46,96,815/- |
Thus the amount of Rs.3,54,414/- out of the amount of Rs.3,54,414.60 paid by the complainant at the time of earlier booking was adjusted against Flat No.5G.
4. The possession of flat No.5G was taken by the complainant on 18.9.2012. The opposite party also demanded an amount of Rs.864020.82 from the complainant for the additional work alleged to have been done by it in the flat allotted to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that there were several deficiencies in the flat when it was occupied by him and the parking lot which the opposite party had allotted to him alongwith flat No.5G had been sold to the
