Summery Notes in Consumer Case No

Summery notes in Consumer case no.
39/2016
Subhash Chandra Yadav vs. M/s Raheja Developers Limited & Ors.
Date Events Page

7.11.2007 The Op1 obtained a License No.257 of 2007 from opposite party
No.3 (Town and Country Planning) for development of a
residential Group Housing colony on the said land
11.04.2008 The Flat No. C-0801 on 8th Floor in Tower C of the project ‘Raheja
Atharva’ was booked by previous allottee.
9.04.2013 The Complainant got transferred in his name the said flat (vide
Flat Buyer Agreement dated 9.04.2013) making payment of Rs
225,922/- to opposite party No1. towards transfer fee charges and 30-52
also making the payment of Rs. about 65 Lakhs to the original
allottee. Agreement dated 9.04.2013 is annexed as(Annexure
C1).
12.06.2013 Total amount of Rs. 80 lakhs already stood paid towards
apartment cost, vehicle parking, club membership, EDC & IDC
and transfer charges.
23.05.2014 The complainant also received a demand letter
24.05.2014 That the complainant also received covering letter stating that the 62-64
OC of the apartment of the Complainant was received dated
20.05.2014. Furthermore, the complainant was offered the
possession of the apartment subject to payment of demand letter
dated 23.05.2014, which was to be made by due date i.e.
24.06.2014. Copy of demand letter dated 23.05.2014 (Annexure
C-2), copy of letter dated 24.05.2014(Annexure c-3)
8.09.2014 The Complainant received an email from op no.1 asking the
complainant to sign some documents for the purpose of
handing over the possession of the apartment
26.09.2014 The complainant wrote the letter to op no.1 clearly objecting 65-68
signing of consent letter as a condition precedent to allotment
of possession of the said flat .(Annexure C-4)
26.09.2014 The complainant took the possession of the flat vide possession 69-70
letter dated 26.09.2014 issued by office of op no.1 . (Annexure
C-5)
17.06.2015 A letter is received from op no.1 alleging that final audit area has 71-73
been done and the apartment of complainant area has been
found to be increased. (Annexure C-6).
20.10.2015 OP no.1 demanded more money towards escalation cost @ 77-84
Rs.365/- psft. Charges towards increased super area and charges
with respect increase in electricity supply were also demanded.
Copy of letter dated 20.10.2015 is annexed herewith as
(Annexure C-8)
4.11.2015 The complainant did not receive any information from the from
the state public information officer/ O/o Director general town
and country planning on his application dated 9.09.2015 and
preferred an appeal dated 28.10.2015 to the Appellate
Authority.
23.11.2015 The Complainant submitted the copy of RTI application to the
Appellate Authority.
2.12.2015 The complainant received the information in the RTI. A 86-96
certificate has been provided dated 20.05.2014 which is a
conditional certificate and op1 was obliged to complete 18
condition within a period of 3 months. . RTI information received
vide letter dated 2.12.2015 is annexed as (Annexure C10)
12.01.2016 Complaint under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
GROUNDS:
 That the complainant is a consumer within meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the
Consumer Protection Act,1986 and selling of the said flat is a “service” within the
meaning of section 2 (o) of the act.
 Delay in handing over the possession, not providing basic amenities as promised
in the flat buyer agreement, not executing the conveyance deed and also not
complying of the License issued to opposite party no1. By opposite party no.3
amounts to deficiency in service with the meaning of section 2 (g) of the CP Act,
1986 as well as amount to unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 2
(r) of the act
 Supreme court in “Samruddhi Co-operative housing society Ltd. Vs Mumbai
Mahalaxmi construction Pvt ltd.” has held that failure to obtain OC or abide by
contractual obligation amounts to a deficiency in service. In treaty Construction
vs ruby the court also considered the question of awarding compensation for not
obtaining OC.
 The OC from op No.3 was issued on 26.09.2015 and the audit was done after
that, thus clearly proving that the op no1. had managed to procure the OC by
illegal means such as corruption and totally unfair practice on part of OP No.1 to
hand over the flat without basic amenities.
 Reply dated 2.12.2015 to the RTI application stated the following
a) That on 20.05.2014, OP No.3 issued a conditional and provisional
certificate which was required to fulfill 18 condition within a period of 3
months before issuing possession to the complainant. None of the
conditions were fulfilled before issuing possession.
b) No information compliance report has been submitted by OP No.1 to OP
No.3
c) OP NO1. In collusion with OP no.3 got license for Raheja Atharva and
Raheja shilas and illegally clubbed it and thereby area and facilities
earmarked to Raheja Atharva was substantially reduced and there was
delayed allotment
 Demand of Rs 11,58,650 by OP No.1 was illegal as the flats were handed over
without the fulfilling of 18 conditions. And therefore the possession was no
possession in the eyes of the law
 Observation made by the local Commissioner
 OP No.1 illegally acquired approval of 300 flats on acquiring just 0.8 acres of
the land in the project. Thus, decreasing the open space of the project which
was the main attraction of the project.
 Complainant stepped into the shoes of original allottee on transfer of flat in
his name. OP no.1 put all condition as original agreement dated 12.09.2008
into the agreement dated 09.04.2013 with Complainant in toto and made
them liable to pay outstanding charges. Therefore, op1 has to give possession
with in 36 months as per agreement dated 12.09.2008
 OP No.1 cannot take cannot take shelter under clause 4.2 and 4.3 from the
Flat buyer agreement to absolve from its liability to provide facilities as
promised in the brochure to the Complainant. Local Commissioner observed
that the quality of work, construction and quality of material used in
construction is very poor
 The Supreme Court in “Experion developers vs Sushma Ashok Shiroor” has
held that interest on the refund shall be payable from the date of deposit.
 The Hon’ble NDRC in “Swarn Talwar vs. Unitech ltd.” Has held that refund
with simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum as a comprehensive all-
inclusive compensation is fully justified in this case.
 The Hon’ble NDRC in “Shri Satish Kumar vs M/s Unitech Ltd.” Has held that for
interregnum i.e. between 3 years from date of initial allotment and 3 years
from the date of repurchase by them, Compensation will be paid by the
opposite party at the rate of Rs.51 per sq. ft of the super area in terms of
clause 4c of buyers agreement.

Summery Notes in Consumer Case No

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summery Notes in Consumer Case No

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summery Notes in Consumer Case No

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summery notes in Consumer case no.

Date Events Page

You might also like