Taken up through video conferencing..
1. This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 16.04.2013 of the State Commission in appeal no. 89 of 2013 arising out of the Order dated 21.12.2012 of the District Commission in complaint no. 617 of 2011.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the two sides. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 21.12.2012 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 16.04.2013 of the State Commission and the petition.
3. The matter relates to a builder-buyer dispute.
The District Commission passed its Order on contest. It ordered the opposite party builder company (the petitioner herein) to accept the balance payment of Rs. 16,25,925/- minus Rs. 3,25,185/- from the complainant (the respondent herein) and to charge interest from the complainant from the date of cancellation of the subject flat i.e. 20.06.2009 and to hand over the possession of the flat to the complainant. It also awarded compensation of Rs. 2,000/-.
Extracts from the appraisal made by the District Commission are reproduced below:
In the present case, main questions for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is liable to pay EDC, car parking charges, club memberships charges and as to from which date the complainant is liable to pay interest to the respondent for getting the possession of alt No. 040203.
First of all, we straightaway decide that the complainant is liable to pay External Development charges because the respondent has also no control over the External Development charges. Accordingly, it is directed to the complainant to pay external development charges to the respondent as per terms and conditions of the agreement.
Now coming to the other point whether the complainant is liable to pay club membership and car parking charges or not?
Learned counsel for the complainant while replying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2544 of 2010 decided on 31.08.2010 titled as Nahalchand Laloochand P.Ltd. Vs. Panchali Co-op Hng. Styl Ltd. has argued that it is compulsory requirement to provide for parking spaces under DCR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above judgment has held that it is, thus, clear that the promoter has no right to sell 'stilt parking spaces' as these are neither 'flat' nor appurtenant or attachment to a 'flat'.
He further argued that the car parking charges and club membership are the hidden charges and the same were never brought into the knowledge of the complainant at any time. Rather the complainant herself vide letter dated 22.06.2007 has made a request to the respondents to remove all the hidden charges from the cost of the flat as per the terms and conditions of the contract and the respondent at their own cannot force the complainant to pay any amount under hidden charges.
So, taking into consideration the above cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that the complainant is not entitled to pay car parking charges and club membership to the respondent and the respondent also cannot force the complainant to pay the same. Accordingly, we direct the respondent not to charge car parking charges and club membership from the complainant.
Now coming to the other point as to from which date the complainant is liable to pay interest to the respondent for getting the possession of flat No. 040203.
Learned counsel for the complainant in the written arguments has submitted in para No. 20 that a total payment of Rs. 325125/- is deposited with the respondent for the last about six years and deposited issuance of allotment letter in favour of the complainant, the respondent has failed to offer possession of the plot and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent since they are utilizing the huge amount of the complainant without providing any services to the complainant.
This Forum has also perused the prayer clause of the complainant therein it is prayed to direct the respondent to hand over the possession of the flat No. 040203 to the complainant on balance payment i.e. Rs. 16,25,925/- minus Rs. 3,25,185/- deposited with the respondent.
In our view, definitely the complainant is entitled to get possession of the flat No. 040203 from the respondent subject to deposit of balance payment with interest and the said interest is to be charged by the respondent from the complainant on the balance payment from the date of cancellation of the flat i.e. 20.6.2009. Thus, it is directed to the respondent to accept the balance payment with interest at the rate of 09% from the complainant and to charge the interest from the complainant from the date of cancellation of the flat i.e. 20.6.2009 and to hand over the possession of the flat No. 040203 to the complainant.
We order accordingly.
Since the complainant has been above to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs. Two Thousands for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.
With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed and the respondent is directed to make the compliance of the order within one month from the date of pronouncement.
4. The builder co. preferred appeal before the State Commission.
The State Commission re-appraised the case and vide its Order dated 16.04.2013 dismissed the appeal.
The findings of the State Commission are quoted below:
It has also come on the record that the complainant deposited the total payment of Rs. 3,25,125/- with the appellant-opposite party but the opposite party failed to deliver the possession of the flat even after allotment of the flat to the complainant.
Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we hardly find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. Hence, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
5. We are not reproducing the entire Orders of the District Commission and the State Commission here, they are a matter of record and no useful purpose will be served by reproducing them all over again. Suffice is to say that the State Commission has passed a reasoned order. It has concurred with the findings of the District Commission. No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below is visible, as may cau
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
se to require fresh de novo re-appreciation in revision. We see no jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored or erroneously ruled, or miscarriage of justice having been occasioned. The award made by the District Commission, as affirmed by the State Commission, appears just and equitable in the facts of the case. We find no good ground to interfere in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. 6. The petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed. 7. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the District Commission within three days. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.