h

BEFORE THE HON. PUNE DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, PUNE

Complaint No.13/390

Mr. S. Nareshkumar

..

Complainant

v/s.
M/s. Naiknavare Housing Development P Ltd

..

Opponent

Written version of the opponent is as under:

1)

The contents averments and allegations made in the

complaint are neither true nor correct and are therefore
specifically denied by the opponent herein.

The

complainant be put to the strict proof of each and every

averment, allegation made in the said complaint.

The

complainant is guilty of severe delay and laches as also of

suppressing material information from this Hon. Forum.

Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs;

leave alone the ones prayed for.

No cause of action

whatsoever arose to the complainant to file the present

complaint.
narrated

The instances of accrual of cause of action

in

the

complaint

are

false,

frivolous

and

imaginary.

The complaint is hopelessly barred by

limitation.

It is the further submission of the opponent

that there has been no deficiency in the services rendered

by the opponent. The opponent is also not guilty of unfair
trade practice and therefore the complainant is not
entitled to receive any compensation at all, leave alone
the one claimed..
2)

Without prejudice to whatever has been stated above, the

opponent proceeds to place its parawise comments as
under:
a) So far as the contents, averments and allegations of
paragraph 1 are concerned, the same are generally
true.
b) With regard to the averments of paragraph 2, it is
true that an amount Rs.13.00 lakhs has been paid by
the complainant to the opponent. However, it is
denied true that the said amount was borrowed by

the complainant from the HDFC Bank by availing a

loan facility.

The complainant be put to the strict

proof thereof.
c) The contents and averments of paragraph 3 are
generally true.

It would not be out of place to

mention that the parties to the registered agreement

are bound by its terms.

As rightly pointed out by the

complainant the possession of his flat was agreed to

be handed over within a period of 24 months from
the date of the agreement, .

tThe same was,

however, subject to the terms and conditions of the

agreement.
d) The contents of paragraph 4 are true.
e) In reply to the contentions, averments and allegation
of paragraph 5, it is denied true that possession of
flat was agreed to be handed over on 27.3.2010. The
complainant be put to the strict proof thereof.

It

would not be out of place here to mention that the

opponent had agreed to handover possession of the
complainants flat within 24 months from the date of
the agreement.

It is the specific submission of the

opponent that possession was agreed to be handed

over upon issuance of completion certificate by the

Architect of the project.

It was futher agreed and

understood by the complainant that the opponent

was entitled to a reasonable extension of time in
handing over possession, the reasons of which are
mentioned in the agreement itself.

It is specifically

agreed by the complainant that the period of delay

caused in completion of the construction of the said
flat on account of force majure, civil commotion,
war, strike, prohibitory orders from any court or any
other authority or any other reasons beyond the
control of the promoter shall be excluded from
computation of period of completion of the said flat
and delivery of possession thereof to the purchaser.
f)

As stated above, Thereafter, upon issuance of

completion certificate by the Architect, possession
was to be handed over to the complainant. It is the
specific submission of the opponent that completion
certificate was issued by the Architect of the
opponent on 5.12.2011 and immediately thereafter
the Opponent time to time intimated to the
Complainant that the construction of the flat has
been completed and to come forward to pay the
balance amount of Rs. 40,284/- towards maintenance
and water charges which are payable as per
Agreement. But the Complainant has failed to pay the
said balance amount immediately and paid on
15.03.2012 after taking on 10.3.2012 vacant

peaceful possession of his flat was handed over to

from the complainantOpponent on 10.3.2012. Since
then
the
complainant
has
been
enjoying
uninterrupted possession of his flat. It would not be
out of place here to mention that the opponent was
entitled to reasonable extension of time if the project
was to get delayed for reasons stated in clause 4 (i)
of the agreement. Therefore, it is incorrect on the
part of the complainant to allege that possession of
his flat has
been delayed by 14 months. The complainant is
uncessarily is unnecessarily twisting the facts for
reasons best known to him.be put to the strict proof
thereof.
The date of issuance of completion
certificate mentioned in the paragraph has been
erroneously shown as 5.12.2010 by the complainant.
In fact, the completion certificate was issued by the
Architect on 5.12.2011. It is denied that possession
of the flat was delayed by 14 months, as alleged.
g) The allegations of paragraph 6 are vehemently
denied by the complainant herein.

The complainant

be put to the strict proof thereof. None of the

documents viz. the alleged leave license agreements
are admitted by the opponent.

The complainant be

put to the strict proof thereof.

Even otherwise,

assuming for the sake of arguments, but without

admitting whatever the complainant is alleging, the
said documents cannot be read in evidence, as they
are unregistered documents. The complainant be put

to strict proof of the contents of the said documents

and that he was required to stay in a rented
accommodation for the period intervening 29.4.2010
and 31.10.2011 and 1.11.2011 and 31.9.2012. The
rent of Rs.7,000/- p.m. alleged to have been paid to
Mrs. Mangal Goakhnath Jadhav for 18 months and
Rs.10,000/- p.m. .alleged to have been paid to Mrs.
Pushpa Yashwant Parshikar is not admitted by the
opponent herein. Not a scrap of paper in support of
the allegations has been placed on record.
h) In reply to the contentions, averments and allegation
of paragraph 7, it is specifically denied mentioned
that there has been a delay of 23 months 12 days in
handing over possession to him.

The averment that

the opponent is liable to pay the complainant

compensation for the physical and mental agonies
alleged to have been caused to him due to the
alleged delay is specifically denied by the opponent.
No such compensation is due and payable by the
opponent to the complainant. In fact there has been
no delay in the completion of the complaiants flat
and further no delay in handing over possession to

the complainant. It is the humble submission of the

opponent that around March,2008 till the end of o
approximately .2009,

that time due to the

polluted political atmosphere, there was a mass

exodus of labour working on various construction
sites in Pune and surrounding areas. The opponent
begs to refer and rely upon

news items in some

prominent newspapers circulated in and around Pune.

Photo

copies

separately.

of

clippings

are

being

submitted

The said events, which were obviously

unexpected and beyond the control of opponent,

their site too was affected to a large extent. All of a
sudden, there was a labour crunch and smooth
development on site was severely affected. All these
incidents were prominently reported in the local
dailies. However, as a matter of courtesy and by way
of abundant precaution, the difficulties being faced
on this front by the opponent was informed to all flat
purchasers, including to the complainant herein. The
site supervisors

were informed to bring this to the

notice of those chosing to visit the site in person.

The deadlines set by the opponent were affected.

The opponent obviously had no hand in the whole
matter.

Most of the flat purchasers in the said

scheme appreciated the genuine difficulties being

faced by the opponent at that time and assured to
extend all necessary co-operation and further that
they would patiently wait for possession.

On this

back drop, the present complaint has indeed come as

a surprise and shock to the opponent. It is indeed a
pity that the complainant is trying to capitalise on the
issue and is therefore seeking compensation.

The

particulars of claim set out in sub paragraph (a) to (i)

are false, concocted and hence specifically denied by
the opponent.

The complainant is not entitled to the

same for the reason that no cogent evidence

whatsoever in support has been placed on record by
the complainant.

Further, without prejudice to

above, it is humbly submitted that it was never

agreed by the opponent that they would take care of
the

complainants

rental.

accommodation

and

pay

the

i) In reply to the contentions, averments and allegation

of paragraph 8, the allegation that the complainant
has had to suffer losses and he is therefore entitled to
claim an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs is specifically
denied by the opponent.

No legal notice dated

17.1.2013 was ever addressed by the complainant to

the opponent and therefore, there was no question of
receiving any such said notice.
put to the strict proof thereof.

The complainant be
It is pertinent to note

that no such notice has been placed on record by the

complainant himself.

Therefore, there was no

occasion to the opponent to reply to the alleged

notice.
j) The contents,

averments
are

and

specifically

allegations
denied

by

of

paragraph

the

opponent.

The instances of accrual of cause of

action are false, frivolous and imaginary and hence

specifically denied.
k) None of the prayers of the complainant can be
granted in his favour.

The particulars of claim are

specifically denied by the opponent.

l) Without prejudice to whatever has been stated

above, the opponent proceeds to place the true and
correct facts as follows:
a) The opponent has floated a huge township
covering about more than 100 acres at Mouje
Mahalunge, Tal. Khed, Dist Pune.
b) It goes without saying therefore, that the project
is to come up in a phasewise manner and that
the development is to spread over a few years.
c) The complainant approached the opponent with a
desire to invest in the said scheme.
d)
e) After due negotiations and deliberations,
the complainant decided to purchase flat
No.12 admeasuring 646 sq. ft. on the 3rd
floor

in

building

No.

C-11.

The

consideration to the said flat was agreed at

Rs.14,22,800/-.

Apart

from

the

said

amount, the complainant has agreed to pay

maintenance and water charges as per actual
Rs._____ towards _____________.
f) At the time of booking the flat, the complainant
had understood and agreed that the project being
a huge one, there was a possibility of there being

a delay in execution of the project. In fact,

the

agreement

executed

by

the

complainant in no uncertain terms spells

out that the opponent would be entitled to
reasonable extension of time in handing
over possession, if the project were to get
delayed for reasons beyond its control. The
complainant

was

agreeable

to

this

proposition too.
g) The opponent submits that the development of
the project was on schedule and the initial
progress on site was quite smooth. However, in
an unexpected twist of events, somewhere in the
month of April, 2011 february 2008, on account
of local political issues, workmen / labour from a
particular part of the country was complelled to
leave Maharashta in large numbers.

A huge

percentage of labour from that region virtually

disappeared from the scene.

It goes without

saying, therefore that construction activity in the

entire State was badly affected.
exception.

Pune was no

It is the humble submission of the

opponent that a large number of workmen

employed by their contracto rs on the site
wherein the complainants flat is situated left the
site almost overnight.

Local dailies prominently

highlighted the said issue.

The difficulty only

worsened as time progressed.

The situation of

shortage of labour from outside of Maharashtra

continued well over a year. Naturally, progress of
work on site got affected. The opponent brought
this to the notice of all flat purchasers in the
scheme through telephonic communication. It is
submitted that normal construction activity on
site resumed only by end of 2009 by ____.
h) The opponent submits that barely had

they

recovered from this setback than another issue

cropped up without any warning whatsoever. It is
submitted that when electrical, plumbing and
painting work the of construction of the the entire
building
situated

in

which

had

the

reached

complainants
upto

___has

flat

is

been

commenced level, the some of the owners of the

plot of land adjacent to the opponents site, Mr.

Rohidas

Mahlungkar

Bhagwant

Yashwant

Bhangare and others created nuisance time to

time

alleging that he they had a right of way

from the opponents plot under one or the other

pretext .

The opponent submits that they tried

to explain him the correct position with the aid of

legal documents.

However, the said owners Mr.

Rohidas Mahalugkar refused to understand the

opponents stand.
i) The opponent submits that he the said some of
the owners started creating hindrances in the
smooth development, which was going on till
then.

He They went to the extent of abusing the

opponents workmen on site.

Even the site

engineers of the opponent were not spared. He

They started preventing the opponents work
force from using the only approach roads to the
site.

He They threatened the work force of dire

consequences, if they would not listen to him. He

They also intimidated them that their vehicles
would be damaged. As a result, the entire
workforce of the opponents was under the

tremendous pressure and constant fear of loss to

their life, property and limb.
j) The opponent submits that the several attempts
to make Mr. Mahalungekar see reason were of no
avail.

Therefore, as a last resort, the opponent

was compelled to approach local police for help.

The police suggested that the matter be sorted
out with himthem amicably.
k) The opponent again tried to talk the matter over
with Mr. Mahalungkar. They sought assistance of
other land owners and influential persons in the
town.

However, none of these attempts of the

opponents seemed to work.

A formal complaint

was lodged with the police.

The police warned

him not to create trouble to the opponent and to

get his rights, if any, adjudicated taking course to
legal means.
l) As a last resort, therefore, the opponent had no
option

but

to

request

the

police

to

take

cognizance of their complaint.

m) On account of the above incidents, which were
beyond the control of the opponent, In the
bargain,

lot

of

time

was

wasted

and

construction on site was hampered to a great

extent. The opponent was lagging behind in the
progress.

The

deadlines

of

handing

over

possession of flats to various flat purchasers had

to be extended.

All these events were beyond

the control of the opponent.

n) The opponent submits that
purchasers

including

the

several

flat

complainant

was

informed about the said development as they

were regularly visiting the site to get themselves
updated on the progress of their respective flats.
Fortunately for the opponent, most of the flat
purchasers understood the predicament in which
the opponent found itself in and they .
o) They agreed to co-operate with
opponent.

The

sympathised

with

complainant
the

opponent

the
also
and

assured that he too would extend all cooperation and wait for possession of his flat
and would not mind it if the same were to get
delayed date of possession would get extended
by some time in view of on account of the said

events. On this back drop, the opponent is

indeed surprised to receive notice in the
present complaint.

note the contents of the

present complaint.
p)
q) In view of the above submissions, and even
otherwise e, the opponent submits that there
has been no deficiency in the services rendered
by it
r) to the complainant . The The copponent is
not

guility

in

indulging

trade

practice.

There has been no negligence whatsoever

in the said matter. Therefore, the complaint for
compensation

for

the

alleged

lossess,

inconvenies. The contents, averments and

allegations absued to the complainant is not
maintainable.

The present complaint is

nothing but an abuse of process of law,

appears to have been filed with a view to extract
moneies,

from

the

therefore

liable

to

exemplary costs.

opponent
be

and

dismissed

is

with

Pune

Date :

Opponent
(aAuthorised
Ssignatory)
V E RIFICATION

I, Shri Hemant D Naiknavare, ____________, Age 53 __ years, Occupation :

Business, having office at _1204/4, Ghole Road, Shivajinagar, Pune 411 004, one
of the Directors of the opponent and the authorised signatory do hereby state
and declare that, the contents and averments above are true and correct to the
best

of our knowledge, belief and information, I have personally verified the

companys records, instructed my lawyer to draft the present written version,

found its contents in accordance with the instruction given, found them to be
true and then I have signed hereunder on this 2 nd May, 2014, at Pune.

Opponent

h
(Authorised Signatory)

Opponent
(Authorised
Signatory)