V.P.GUPTA vs SWASTIK CONSTRUCTION

THE complainant Shri V.P. Gupta has filed this appeal against order dated 27.5.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 90 of 2000.

BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the complaint are that the respondent No.1 M/s. Swastik Construction, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 advertised a scheme regarding the sale of flats at Shivalik Vihar, Phase-3, Mansa Devi Complex. Panchkula. The advertisement appeared in the daily newspaper "The Tribune". The complainant duly perused the layout plan of the scheme and contacted the Project Manager of M/s. Swastik Construction who has been impleaded as O.P. No. 2 in the complaint case on 24.5.1998 and applied for booking a flat on the ground floor No. Al-13 with one car garage and servant quarter under A2-32. The car garage and the servant quarter were just behind the flat No. Al-13 and it was confirmed by Shri Ravi Thakur, the Project Manager - O.P./respondent No. 2. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as an advance money along with requisite form and later on deposited another amount of Rs. 65,000/- on 27.5.1998 bringing the total amount deposited to Rs. 90,000/-. The receipts were duly issued and have been placed on record as Annexures C-1 and C-2. Later on, he was informed by the Project Manager aforesaid that there was a change in the Scheme and the portion under A2-32 were car garage and servant quarters had been converted as ground floor flats. This led the complainant to reconsider the matter regarding the booking of the aforesaid flat and he demanded refund of the amount deposited of Rs. 90,000/- with interest but the same was not made, hence, the complaint was filed. The complainant claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the amount deposited by him i.e. Rs. 90,000/-. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs and assessed conpensation at a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. He also claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation.

The notices were served on the O.Ps. who appeared and filed written statement wherein, it was clearly and categorically mentioned that the layout plan did not show or mention about any servant quarter to be constructed. So far as car garage is concerned, it was contended that only a covered parking was to be allowed and that too on extra payment. It was emphatically denied that Shri Ravi Thakur, Project Manager ever confirmed to the appellant that car garage and servant quarter under A2-32 had been booked along with the flat No. Al-13. It was further contended that the complainant had after fully satifying himself about the flat and the layout plan had applied for booking flat No. Al-13 on the ground floor, the value of which was Rs. 15.90 lacs. The mode of payment as per pamphlet (Annexure R-2), a photocopy placed on record with the written statement was as under : "Mode of payment. Application -5% of total money, cost of unit (Refundable in 60 days if not allotted) On allotment and -20% of total signing the cost of unit agreement (within 60 days of application date) Balance in five half-yearly instalments."

THE photocopy of the layout plan was also placed on record as part of Annexure R-2 where Note No. 2 showed "Covered parking under the stilt area is not included in the cost of the flat and shall be charged separately." THEre is no mention of any servant quarter in it. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate mainly relied on Annexure A-1, a receipt issued by the Project Manager which reads as under : "Received Rs. twenty-five thousand from Sh. V.P. Gupta as an advance money for the flat GF A1-13 with garage in 32. Sd/- 24.5.98"

MR. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate contended that the Project Manager had mentioned in this receipt "flat GF A1-13 with Garrage in 32". It is, however, not disputed that servant quarter is not mentioned in this receipt. So far as garage is concerned, there is only mention of covered parking in the layout plan and not garage. Apart from it, the scheme has been floated by the respondent No.1-company which has been impleaded through its General Manager. The Project Manager is only an officer of the company. The appellant has to show and establish as to whether the company was bound by any act of the Project Manager and whether any valid and legal contract had come into existence regarding the offering of garage and servant quarter along with the flat for which he had made the booking with the respondents. Still further, it is to be considered whether such an agreement could be enforced specifically. In our considered opinion, these issues cannot adequately and appropriately be gone into and considered in the summary jurisdiction given to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies and it is only a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction who can go into these issues at a full dressed trial. Faced with such a situation, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate stated that the complainant/appellant be relegated to his remedy of approaching a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction but his suit may not be barred by limitation. So far as the limitation is concerned, it can only be said that the complainant had been litigating before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies under a bona fide belief and the period spent before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies is liable to be excluded while computing the limitation provided such a prayer is made by the complainant in a civil suit filed before the Civil Court. The appeal is accordingly disposed of and the complaint also stands disposed of by relegating the complainant of his remedy of approaching a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievances. The costs under these circumstances shall be borne by the parties themselves. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal disposed of.