DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. Vs. SHALINI THOMAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants/respondents, applied for purchase of a residential flat from the petitioner along with car parking in Windsor Court, DLF City, Gurgaon and a Buyer's Agreement was thereupon executed between the parties on 3.6.1997, incorporating the terms and conditions agreed by them. Vide letter dated 24.8.2000, the petitioner informed the complainants that having received the occupancy certificate they were in a position to start handing over the physical possession of the apartment to them and requested them to make payment as per the statement of account enclosed with the said letter, so as to enable it to hand over physical possession of the apartment to them. The complainants were also requested to submit the documents specified in the said letter. They were further informed that the petitioner required one month's notice to do the final finishes in the apartment, before handing it over to them. The statement of account required the complainants to deposit Rs. 1,23,243 towards interest on delayed payment up to 30.9.2000, Rs. 5,348 towards interest on delayed payment of extra charges up to 30.9.2000 and stamp duty and registration charges amounting to Rs. 7,53,327. Since the aforesaid payment was not made by the complainants, they were informed vide letter dated 6.11.2000 that as per the Clause 16 of the agreement they were to take possession of the premises within 30 days of the dispatch of the written notice intimating them that the premises was ready and if they fail to take possession they would be liable to pay the holding charges at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq.ft. per month after expiry of 90 days of the company dispatching the written notice. The complainant was informed that since notice to take over possession was sent to her on 25.8.2000, holding charges would be applicable with effect from 26.11.2000 till she took physical possession. She was again requested to complete the formalities, make payment of the balance amount and take possession, so as to avoid payment of holding charges. Being aggrieved from the action of the petitioner the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company justifying the demand made by it. Vide its order dated 21.3.2003 the District Forum directed the petitioner to deliver physical possession of the apartment to the complainant within one month. The petitioner was also directed to charge stamp duty as per rules and was further directed not to charge the holding charges. The petitioner was also directed to pay interest to the complainant at the rate of 18% per annum, on the deposits made by her.

(3.) Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The parties entered into a compromise during pendency of the appeal. As per the compromise, the petitioner agreed to deliver possession of the flat as well as the car parking to the complainant within one month of her depositing the outstanding amount on account of the delayed payment of interest as well as the registration charges. With respect to the holding charges and maintenance charges it was agreed that since the said matter was subjoined before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case DLF v. Nandita Shonik, the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the said case would have the same binding effect on the parties as well. The appeal filedby the petitioner-company was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid compromise between the parties.