AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, J.
The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 11-6-2012 passed in First Appeal No. 1662 of 2007 by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short "State Commission"), whereby the appeal was dismissed and order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short "District Forum") was affirmed.
Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainant was allotted a flat having total area of 1940 sqr. ft.(1720 sq. ft plus 220 Sqr. Ft. terrace ) in Surya Vihar, Dundahera, Gurgaon. The flat was registered in the name of the complainant on 23-3-2002. OP -1 entered into an agreement with the complainant for providing various amenities like Club House, Internal roads, installation of fire fighting system and arrangement of sewerage and garbage etc. Out of the total area, 1830 sq. ft area was to be considered for calculation of maintenance charges. But the OP- 1 has charged an excess amount for maintenance charges i.e 34 paise per sq. ft. per month. The complainant further paid a total amount of Rs.57,419.50 in two instalments towards External development Charges to the OP 1 to be paid to the Haryana government. Despite this payment, OP- 1 charged a portion of Rs.3,43,793/- on pro rata basis for his flat on account of sewerage disposal and maintenance of sewerage disposal pumps from 01-04-1999 to 31-03-2002. The complainant also deposited Rs.10,000 towards legal expenses for his flat of which OP -1 adjusted Rs.4500/- towards the legal and administrative expenses. The complainant also alleged that he had paid other miscellaneous charges to the OPs, but he was not provided the amenities, as promised, and there is no arrangement for garbage disposal in the entire complex. Hence, aggrieved by the conduct of the OPs, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.
The complaint was resisted by both the opposite parties. It was contended by the OP -1 that none of the occupants had any problem regarding the maintenance of the apartments. OP-1 was only responsible for collecting the monthly towards maintenance charges and disbursing the amount as per the requirements expressed by the OP -2. Moreover, the OP 1 never promised to provide garbage disposal facility. It was further averred that after completion of the work, OP- 2 had to manage it. As the OPs had abstained from taking over the possession of the club/community centre building, it is used by the occupants at a very nominal price for hosting weddings and other functions. The quantum of legal charges was communicated by OP-1 to the complainant vide letter dated 10-7-2001, which was accepted by the complainant in writing on 12-7-2001. Therefore, the claim was barred by limitation. The OP-2 also denied all the allegations levelled against it and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The District Forum, vide order dated 24-5-2007, allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to charge maintenance expenses on the super area, which would include the extended area of the flat holders proportionately from each flat holder from the date of the complaint. If any excess amount was charged from the complainant, then it be refunded together with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of deposit till actual payment is made. OP- 1 was also directed to handover the Club House to OP 2/ flat holder fully equipped with all usual facilities and amenities within one month. It is further ordered that the OP-1 shall refund Rs.5500/- charged on account of legal expenses from the complainant together with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of deposit till actual payment; OP-1 shall provide adequate sewerage and garbage disposal facility to the flat holders, failing which, to refund the amount to OP 2/ flat holders which was charged on this account from flat holders to be utilized for the purpose of sewerage and garbage disposal by OP 2/ flat holders.
Being aggrieved by the above-said order, the OP- 1 preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order, dismissed the appeal being devoid of merit and upheld the order of the District Forum.
Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, OP- 1 preferred an appeal before us.
We have heard the learned counsel for all the parties. The ground taken by the petitioner / OP-1 in the present Revision Petition is that the maintenance charge was to be calculated for the extended super area of the flat in proportion and further, the issue raised by the respondent with regard to illegal construction done by other flat purchasers, can be adjudicated by the Civil Courts only. And the complainant cannot be covered under the category of "consumer" as defined under the Act. It was contended that the lower fora erred in observing that the flat purchasers are not willing to pay the annual monthly subscription for club facilities and security deposit for the same. Moreover, Respondent- 2 has time and again refused to take possession of the Club building. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent 1, during her arguments quoted cases like Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd IV (2011) SLT 303, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel & Anr. Vs H& R Johnson(India) Ltd. & Ors.III (2016) CPJ 27 (SC) to state that the National Commission , while deciding a matter under Sec. 21 of the Act , should not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the judgment impugned before it.
It is appalling to note that there is a drastic increase in the number of problems from the construction industry. In the present case too, it is seen that the OPs have been deficient in rendering services. Innocent consumers should not be fooled by these unscrupulous builders. The OP / Revision Petitioner has failed to tender evidence such as Commissioner's Report, Engineer's report etc. to the effect that the amenities as per the Agreement were provided to the respondent 1/ complainant. Moreover, it was rightly observed by the State Commission that the Revision Petitioner has failed to justify the additional charges levied on the Respondent 1/ Complainant on account of increase in super area. So, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the orders passed by the fora below.
PER HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH
The complaint pertains to 2006, we are in 2018.
(i) The District Forum appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 24.05.2007 allowed the complaint to the extent and in the manner recorded in para 9(a) to (d) of its Order.
(ii) The State Commission again appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 11.06.2012 dismissed the appeal.
(iii) This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 11.06.2012 of the State Commission.
(iv) The State Commission's impugned Order dated 11.06.2012 is well-appraised and well-reasoned. After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum.
(v) Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision, is not visible. On the face of it, a jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice is not visible.
(vi) There is no reason evident to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission.
(vii) The revision is seen to be misconceived and devoid of merit.
Hence, the present Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
In line with the direction contained in the daily order dated 17.07.2018 (when arguments were heard), operation of this Order shall remain stayed for four weeks from the date of pronouncement (13.11.2018) of this Order, to provide reasonable time to any party to agitate this Order if it so wishes.