Case nº First Appeal No. 870 Of 2015, (Against the Order dated 03/08/2015 in Complaint No. 107/2014 of the State Commission Punjab) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 10, 2016 (case 1. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. and Ors. 2. Deepak Ansal 3. Sunrise Estate Management Services Vs Jotinder Singh)
|Judge:||For Appellant: Mr. Kapil Kher, Advocate and Mr. Rajesh Pandit, Advocate, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate|
|President:||Mr. V.K. Jain,Presiding Member|
|Resolution Date:||November 10, 2016|
|Issuing Organization:||National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission|
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
The respondent / complainant and his son Hemjeet Singh jointly booked a residential flat in a project, which the appellant no. 1 was to develop in Zirakpur, Mohali. The booking was made in November, 2007 and the sale consideration was agreed at Rs.23,88,276/-. The possession, according to the complainant / respondent was agreed to be delivered within 18/24 months after completing the flat in all respects. The possession of the flat however, was offered only on 21.8.2012. The offer was accompanied by a demand of Rs.2,36,661/-. An additional demand of Rs.49,045/- was thereafter raised towards maintenance charges. Both the aforesaid payments were made by the complainant, who claims to have paid an excess amount of Rs.60,154/- to appellant No. 1. According to the complainant / respondent when he went to take possession on 25.09.2012, he found that the bathrooms were not complete, electric wiring etc. had not been provided and there were several defects and deficiencies in the flat offered to him. The complainant therefore refused to take possession of the flat and asked appellant No. 1 to remove the aforesaid defects and deficiencies. The appellant No. 1 however, failed to remove the said defects and deficiencies but kept on raising the bills for maintenance charges, through appellant No. 3, which was opposite party No.3 in the complaint, namely Sunrise Estate Management Services, which is stated to be a sister concern of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the complainant / respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal, seeking possession of the said flat, along with compensation and a direction to the appellants to develop the park in front of the tower in which the flat allotted to him was situated or in the alternative, refund a sum of Rs.61,050/- along with interest and damages quantified at Rs.5.00 lacs on account of the consequent reduction in the value of the flat. He also sought refund of Rs.49,045/- which he had paid towards maintenance charges along with interest on that amount @ 21% per annum.
The complaint was resisted by the appellants, who admitted the booking of the flat on 23.11.2007 as well as the payment of Rs.60,154/- towards preferential location charges. They also admitted that the possession of the flat was offered only on 21.8.2012. It was further stated in the reply that on account of the change in the location of the flat, the amount of Rs.60,145/- has been credited in the account of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant did not turn up to take possession of the flat, despite which possession having been offered to him.
The State Commission vide its order dated 03.8.2015, issued the following directions...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL