Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Dr. Amitabha Sen – Complainant
versus
Raj Singh Gehlot and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.1596 of 2018
Decided on 24.2.2021
For the Complainant:Dr. Amitabha Sen, Advocate Complainant in person with Ms. Aditi Pandey, Ms. Prarthana and Mr. Abhinav, Advocates
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. P.K. Agrawal, Advocate with Ms. Tanya Sharma and Ms. Deepti Gupta, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of contract voluntarily agreed by them.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 – Section 5 – Haryana Apartment Ownership Rules, 1987 – Rule 5 – Deed of apartment – Execution – Scope – Case of complaint that an Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 20.10.2001 was executed between complainant and opposite party no.2 – Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 54,46,706/- towards the purchase of Apartment – And also paid an additional 13% of sale price towards registration charges – Conveyance deed was executed on 16.8.2014 – Complainant alleged that the conveyance deed was forced upon the complainant by opposite parties in law of Deed of Apartment – Conveyance Deed found to have executed as per clause no. 13 of Apartment Buyer Agreement – There were no one-sided clauses in the Agreement – Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice ruled out – Expressed term and condition of Apartment Buyer Agreement are binding on parties – No relief can be granted beyond the term of Agreement between parties. (Paras 6 to 13)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—The present Complaint is filed under Section-21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The Complainant is a resident and owner of E-103, Ambience Island Lagoon Apartment at NH-8 in Gurgaon, Haryana. Opposite Party No.1 is the Director of the Opposite Parties Nos.2 & 3, both Private Limited Companies registered under Companies Act, 1956.
3. The case of the Complainant is that an Apartment Buyers Agreement, dated 20.10.2001, was executed between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 54,46,706/- towards the purchase of the Apartment. The Complainant paid an additional 13% of sale price in two instalments for the registration of the Deed of Apartment in the names of the Complainant and his spouse. An acknowledgement dated 10.04.2003 confirming receipt of the total amount of Rs.6,61,760/- from Opposite Party No.2 was received by the Complainant. The Conveyance Deed was executed on 16.08.2014. All the registration charges were paid in advance by the Complainant, in anticipation of quick and prompt registration of the Apartment. The Opposite Parties, however, have not executed the Deed of Apartment in favour of the Complainant till date. The Complainant alleged that the Conveyance Deed was forced upon the Complainant by the Opposite Parties in lieu of the Deed of Apartment. It revealed that the Opposite Parties systematically and intentionally defrauded and misled the Complainant. Alleging deficiency in service for not executing Deed of Apartment, the present Complaint has been filed before this Commission with the following prayer:-
“a. Direct the Respondents to execute and register the Deed of Apartment in accordance with the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act,1983 in the names and favor of the Complainant and his spouse; and
b. Direct the Respondents to pay Rs.5.00 crore (Five crore) compensation to the Complainant towards the mental agony, suffering and torture, the Complainant had have to undergo because of the extremely outrageous nature of illegality and fraud perpetrated by the Respondents intentionally by trying to force upon the Complainant a completely illegal and fraudulent Conveyance Deed designed to deprive the Complainant of his Constitutionally guaranteed right to Property and Right to life; and deny the Complainant his right to register his property and obtain the Deed of Apartment as proof of ownership; and
c. Direct the Respondent to pay to the Complaint the cost of the present Complaint; and
d. Any other and/or further relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the light and circumstances of the facts of the present complaint.”
4. The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties by filing Written Statement. It was stated that this Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint, as the total consideration of the Apartment was Rs.44,46,706/- only. Complainant sought a compensation of Rs.5 crores for the purpose of bringing this Complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The Complaint was, therefore, not maintainable. Though the Conveyance Deed was already executed on 16.08.2014, the Complainant kept insisting that only Deed of Apartment should be executed in his favour. Opposite Parties have executed the Conveyance Deed in terms of the Agreement. There was no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Complaint was liable to be dismissed.
5. In reply to the written statement on behalf of the Opposite Parties, Complainant filed rejoinder. It was stated that the Conveyance Deed was executed in favour of the Complainant on 16.08.2014. However, the Opposite Parties were required to execute Deed of Apartment in terms of Rule 5 of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. Opposite Parties were trying to mislead this Commission with the terms “conveyance deed” and “deed of apartment.” Opposite Party No.1 made a statement before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CS (OS) No.2085
