BARNALA BUILDERS & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS Vs. KRISHAN GOPAL
LAWS(NCD)-2020-7-31
NCDRC
Decided on July 08,2020

Barnala Builders And Property Consultants Appellant
VERSUS
KRISHAN GOPAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JASWANT SINGH VS. HDFC BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Prem Narain, J. - (1.) This first appeal has been filed by the appellant M/s. Barnala Builder & Property Consultants, challenging the order dated 6th February 2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh (in short 'the State Commission') in CC No. 831 of 2017.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/ complainants booked a flat in the project of the appellant/ opposite party and they were allotted flat No. 404 in Block D-6 on second floor measuring 1037 square feet. After about a year, the respondents got the flat changed and they were allotted that No. 102 in Block D-4 with 1307 square feet area in Maya Garden City and this allotment was dated 8th September 2012. The total consideration of the flat was Rs.38,00,233/-and the complainants opted for construction linked payment plan and the complainants paid Rs.34,20, 210/- to the opposite party which was 90% of the total consideration. The opposite party offered possession on 14th November 2014 and demanded the remaining consideration along with service tax, maintenance charges and interest as under:- a. Rs.3,80,047/-: towards the balance cost of the flat. b. Rs.2,44,794/- towards the interest till date. c. Rs.1,17,427/-: towards the service tax d. Rs.1,29,394/-: towards the one time maintenance Charges for 3 years + 3 years free.
(3.) The complainants objected to the demand in respect of the interest and maintenance charges and they did not pay the demand and did not take the possession. Rather, the complainants filed a consumer complaint No. 263 of 2015 before the District Forum of SAS Nagar Mohali Punjab (in short 'the District Forum'). The complaint was resisted by the opposite party on the ground that some of the installments were not paid in time and therefore the interest was charged as per the agreement. Similarly maintenance charges were also charged as per the agreement. The remaining amount of the consideration as well as the service tax are in any case payable by the complainants. Pleading no deficiency on the part of the opposite party, the appellant further stated that the possession of the flat was offered on 14th November 2014 and it was requested that the complaint may be dismissed. However, the president of the District Forum allowed the complaint vide it's order dated 25th January 2016 whereas the two members gave their dissenting opinion on some points. The complainants as well as the opposite party preferred appeals before the State Commission. The Appeal No. 227 of 2016 filed by the opposite party was dismissed in limine vide order dated 5th April 2016. However, the Appeal No. 247 of 2016 filed by the complainants was partially allowed vide order dated 1st June 2017 and the matter was remanded to the District Forum with a specific direction to the members to clarify their opinion. Though the opposite party preferred a revision petition before this Commission against the order dated 5th April 2016 being revision petition No. 2444 of 2016 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6th July 2017. Thus, the matter rested with the District Forum and District Forum finally allowed the complaint vide it's order dated 18th July 2017 and directed the opposite party to cancel the demand relating to interest and maintenance charges. The opposite party preferred appeal being FA No. 637 of 2017 before the State Commission.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.