Haryana

Sonipat

227/2014

SHAILINDU GUPTA S/O SUDEH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. ANSAL PROPERTIES,2ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTORES - Opp.Party(s)

INDERSEN RAHIL

16 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.227 of 2014

                                Instituted on.09.09.2014

                                Date of order:26.10.2015

 

Shailindu Gupta son of Sudesh Kumar, r/o H.No.195, near Medical Turn, Daryao Nagar, Rohtak.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.,  Regd. Office 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Director.

2.The Branch Manager, Ansal Sushant City, NH-1, near village Rasoi, Kundli, distt. Sonepat.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Indersen Ruhil, Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Mannu Malik, Adv. for respondents.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

DV Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that originally a flat no.0114-D-F-1203 was allotted to one Suresh Arora Pruthi, situated in Europa Residency, Kundli, distt. Sonepat.  The complainant purchased the said flat from the said Suresh.  The complainant fulfilled all the formalities for transfer of the said flat in his favour. The complainant under protest deposited a sum of Rs.3,55,572/- as transfer fees  and the respondents transferred the said flat vide letter dated 10.12.2013. In the month of 8/2014, the complainant came to know that the respondents reduced the transfer fees from Rs.250/- per sq. feet to Rs.100/- per sq. feet.  The complainant has submitted that the respondents illegally charged the excessive transfer money at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. feet  and they did not purchase the stamp duty.   So, he has filed the present complaint against the respondents for seeking directions to refund the amount of Rs.3,55,572/- after deducting stamp duty, if any purchased, alongwith interest and compensation.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant has purchased the said flat from the previous owner.  The transfer charges were deposited by the complainant with his free will and consent after understanding the same.   The flat was transferred in the name of the complainant and a letter was issued to the complainant in this regard. The respondents have not charged any excessive transfer charges illegally.  No amount on account of stamp duty charges was received by the respondents from the complainant.   The complainant has no right to demand back the transfer charges paid for transfer of the flat in his favour.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that The complainant under protest deposited a sum of Rs.3,55,572/- as transfer fees  and the respondents transferred the said flat vide letter dated 10.12.2013. In the month of 8/2014, the complainant came to know that the respondents reduced the transfer fees from Rs.250/- per sq. feet to Rs.100/- per sq. feet.  The complainant has submitted that the respondents illegally charged the excessive transfer money at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. feet  and they did not purchase the stamp duty.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the transfer charges were deposited by the complainant with his free will and consent after understanding the same.   The flat was transferred in the name of the complainant and a letter was issued to the complainant in this regard. The respondents have not charged any excessive transfer charges illegally.  No amount on account of stamp duty charges was received by the respondents from the complainant.   The complainant has no right to demand back the transfer charges paid for transfer of the flat in his favour.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

4.        After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  In the present case, agreement was executed in between both the parties and both the parties are equally bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement.  The respondents in their written statement have submitted that the transfer charges were deposited by the complainant with his free will and consent after understanding the same.   The flat was transferred in the name of the complainant and a letter was issued to the complainant in this regard. The respondents have not charged any excessive transfer charges illegally.  No amount on account of stamp duty charges was received by the respondents from the complainant.   The complainant has no right to demand back the transfer charges paid for transfer of the flat in his favour.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  On the other hand, the complainant has failed to produce any record of the persons who were charged by the respondents at the rate of Rs.50/- or Rs.100/-.  Further the complainant has failed to produce any rules of HUDA before this Forum.  So, in the absence of the same, the version of the complainant cannot be believed and the respondents cannot be held deficient in any manner.  The complainant has failed to prove his case against the respondents and thus, he is not entitled to get any relief from the respondents.  The present complaint is devoid of any merit and thus, we dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 26.10.2015