SHAILENDRA KUMAR Vs. JAGDISH A DIALANI & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant / appellant along with his mother Smt. Suman Sakharam Ghaste entered into an agreement with Respondent No.1 for purchase of a residential flat for a consideration of Rs.25.00 lacs. As per Clause 2 of the said agreement, the carpet area of the flat was admeasuring about 760 sq. ft. inclusive of the area of balcony shown on the plan annexed and marked as Annexure-D. The agreement was executed on 1.6.1999 and the possession of the flat was delivered to the complainant / respondent on 26.9.1999. The grievance of the complainant is that the actual carpet area of the flat delivered to him by respondent No.1 was only 659 sq. ft. The complainant therefore approached the concerned State Commission way of a consumer complaint, seeking the balance additional area or in the alternative price of the deficient area, along with compensation. Since the flat was purchased by the complainant through respondent No.2 he was also imlpeaded as a party to the consumer complaint and compensation was sought from him as well to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant also sought a sum of Rs.1,10,789/- which he claimed to have paid as excess stamp duty, on account of the carpet area of the flat having been recorded as 760 sq. ft. in the agreement for sale.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the respondents. Respondent No.,1 inter-alia alleged in its written version to the consumer complaint that the actual carpet area of the flat was 760 sq. ft. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 26.8.2011, dismissed the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved the complainant / appellant is before this Commission by way of this appeal.

(3.) When this appeal came up for hearing on 4.6.2008, respondent No.1 was directed to file a report of a qualified Architect detailing therein the carpet area of each and every portion shown in Annexure D, which was the plan annexed to the sale agreement as well as the total carpet area of the flat as per the aforesaid plan. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, respondent No.1 has filed a report of a qualified Architect namely Mr. Hemat J. Sharma, supported by an affidavit. As per his report, the total carpet area of the flat was 674.74 sq. ft. whereas the carpet area of the servant toilet was of 51.25 s q. ft. The area of the internal wall is stated to be 19.50 sq.ft., whereas the area of the external wall is stated to be 57.49 sq. ft.