AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
The case of the Complainants is that they are the allottees of Residential Flats in 'Sampoornam date of commencement of the scheme. It is alleged that the construction of the first two blocks was
"(a Declare that Respondent No.2 is bound to complete the construction undertak
(b) grant the Complainants immediate possession of the Flats in the two completed
(c) order the Respondent Housing Board to complete construction
of the third block at the earliest;
(c) direct Respondent No. 2 to provide Completion Certificate and to obtain all suc
(d) grant the amenities block to the Complainants as the same has not been constru
(e) grant undivided share of the land to the Complainants;
(f) grant interest @ 18 per cent p.a. to the Allottees for the abnormal delay in comp
(g) order the Respondent Housing Board to pay house stipulated after the rent of Rs
(h) grant the Complainants compensation for the mental agony caused by the Respo
(i) grant the Complainants costs for legal expenses;
(j) grant any further compensation to Complainants for deficiencies found in the Flats;
(k) order the Respondent Housing Board to provide free of cost car parking to the C
(l) order the Respondent Housing Board to provide a breakup of the final cost;
(m) order the Respondent Housing Board to provide compensation for any deviations from the brochure and the proposed plan;
(n) pass such other order/s as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the
The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Parties by filing Written Statement contending th inoperative as "final tentative cost" was never fixed. It was also contended that "Sampoornam" pro
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Complainants and Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and carefully
Serial No.
Heads
Prices
1.
Final Cost of the Flat
Rs.34, 84,610/-
2.
Taxes
Rs.9, 47,293/-
3.
Water and Electricity Connection Charges
Rs.1,86,329/-
4.
Miscellaneous Charges
Rs.15,654/-
5.
One Car Parking Space
Rs.1,50,000/-
6.
Total
Rs.47,83,886/-
7.
Add Rounding Off
Rs. 1,114/-
8.
Total amount payable
Rs.47,85,000/-
This Commission, vide order dated 31.01.2018 again directed the Opposite Parties to file brea
Serial No.
A. Mandatory Taxes
Amount (Rs)
1
Seignorage Charges
Rs.20,00,000.00
2
VAT @5%
Rs.3,94,61,362.00
3
Service Tax 4.994%
Rs.3,90,19,394.84
4
Labour Cess 1%
Rs.78,92,272.00
5
B. Other Charges
Advertisement Charges
Rs.78,92,272.42
6
Architectural Consultancy
Rs.97,86,417.80
7
Building Permission Fee Rs.77/- per Sq. ft.
Rs.2,91,06.000.00
8
Over Head Charges@15%
Rs.11,83,84,086.29
9
Amount paid to Fire Service Department
Rs.12,34,000.00
10
Amount paid to Legal Charges
Rs.10,00,000.00
Total (A+B)
Rs.25,57,75,806.00
Rs.25,57,75,806.00/207 Flats
Rs.9,47,293.00
Learned Counsel for Complainants submitted that Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 charged miscel
Learned Counsel for the Complainants also stated that as per Agreement dated 05.07.2011 the
Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 resisted the Complaint stating that Oppo 'Tentative Cost'. The Complaint had been filed by the Complainants claiming as if the condition st
Learned Counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 submitted that 'Final Tentative Cost' was no " 23. (1) The estimated cost of flat/ house shall comprise of:
(i) The cost of land;
(ii) the cost of development which shall include external amenities such as laying of w
(iii) the cost of civil works (iv) the cost of internal amenities' such as water supply an
It was submitted that 15% overhead charges in the Final Cost were statutory and not arbitrary
" Resolved to adopt over heads/administrative charges on all Self-Financing Scheme
It was further submitted that enhancement, therefore, was only of 13.14% and not of 70% as a
Complainants filed rejoinder on 14.03.2017 to the written statement filed by Opposite Parties
Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties raised the issue of maintainability. He submitted tha
"The primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under Section 1 'persons so interested' and 'persons having the same interest' used in Section 12(1)(c) me
In view of the above, the joint Complaint under 12 (1) (c) of the Act is maintainable.
Before deciding the Complaint on merit, it is to be noted that 135 Complainants filed the insta
Regarding the jurisdiction to entertain matters with respect to the discretion of the Housing Au
"After adverting to the relevant decisions on the point this Commission held that the questio time of allotment of the houses/Flats is not arbitrary. The registered persons cannot, therefo
The Apex Court in DDA vs. Ashok Kumar Behal & Others (2002) 7 SCC 135 laid down th
Next issue relates to car parking charges of Rs.1,50,000/-. Levy of Car Parking charges was a
"53.We are unable to accede to the above submission. The ABA contained a break-up of th
"54.The decision of this Court in Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited v. 24 "KAO Act"
For the foregoing discussion and the settled law as well as terms and condition of the Demand
Regarding delay in delivery of possession, the Learned Counsel 1st & 2nd Block on 30.06.2014 and the construction of 3rd Block was completed on 03.09.2016. The Housing Board obtained "Occupancy 3.Payment schedule
...
For the delay in payment of installments, the purchaser shall pay the in ." Clause 13, relating to completion of flats, registration and delivery
" 13 . Time for completion, registration and delivery : The seller complete the construct
Combined reading of Clauses 3 & 13 laid down in the Agreement cl An Agreement or a term thereof is substantively unfair, oppressive or un In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the
For the foregoing discussion, Complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Part