SINDHU MATTOO Vs. PAN REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal filed under Sec. 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short 'the Act') challenges the order dtd. 28/7/2021 of the State Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the 'State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 692 of 2019, wherein the State Commission disallowed the compliant seeking relief/ compensation under various heads including refund of car parking charges and the excess demands raised by the opposite party.

(2.) Briefly put, the relevant facts of the case are that the Appellant/Complainant is an allottee of apartment bearing Unit No. M-304, 3rd Floor at "PAN Oasis", GH-01, Sector 70, NOIDA being developed by the Respondent Company. The Appellant availed the services of the Respondent Company for constructing/developing a residential apartment, for a consideration of Rs.43,07,250.00. It is submitted that the Appellant purchased the subject apartment for her use and not for any commercial purpose, Pursuant to the booking of the apartment and payment of booking amount of Rs.3,68,924.00 the Respondent executed a Flat Buyers' Agreement (FBA) dtd. 8/8/2011 and Allotment Letter dtd. 12/8/2011 allotting apartment No. N-1206A in the project to the Appellant. As per the FBA, delivery of possession was promised within 36 months plus 3 months grace period from the date of signing of the FBA i.e. by 8/11/2014. It is submitted that the apartment booked by the Appellant was No. N-1206A as the same was East facing and park facing. He availed a bank loan in 2011. However, on 26/8/2011, representative of the Respondent informed the Appellant that due to some error, the position of the apartment No. N-1206A had been changed from park facing and East facing to South facing and would not be park facing. On account of change in the apartment booked by the Appellant, the Respondent offered another apartment i.e. M-304 and enhanced Preferential Location Change (PLC) from Rs.100.00 to Rs.150.00 per sq. ft. resulting in increase in the consideration of the apartment by Rs.1,68,750.00. As the Appellant had no other option, she agreed for the change in apartment. Respondent then issued a new Flat Buyers' Agreement dtd. 17/3/2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") to the Appellant for apartment no. M-304, having super area of 1125 sq. ft. and total consideration of Rs.43,07,250.00. As per this Agreement, the date of possession of the apartment was changed to 16/6/2015 instead of 8/11/2014 (as per the old Agreement). At the time of signing of the Agreement, the Appellant had already made a payment of Rs.34,16,795.00 and a balance amount of Rs.8,90,455.00 was payable at the time of handing over of possession of the apartment. Respondent issued a letter dtd. 2/4/2016 to the Appellant informing her that the construction of the apartment had reached Pre-final Stage and offered the apartment after payment of dues and formalities only for the purpose of 'Fit-out' by handing over keys. The Respondent issued "Final Outstanding Statement" dtd. 16/11/2018, which, according to the Appellant, was unreasonable and raised 'unfair' demands. Due to the delay in handing over possession of the apartment for nearly 5 years, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on part of the Respondent, the Appellant filed Consumer Complaint No. 692 of 2019 under Sec. 17(a)(i), before the State Commission, Delhi seeking, inter alia, possession of the apartment along with compensation for delay, mental agony and litigation costs. On 15/1/2020 the State Commission placed Respondent ex-parte and directed the Appellant to file evidence by way of an affidavit. Based on oral arguments of Appellant on 19/7/2021 the complaint was decided by way of the impugned order which directed the Opposite Party as under:-

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered the material on the record.