Haryana

Sonipat

45/2014

MRS. ARUNIMA SHARMA W/O S.D. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. TANEJA DEVELOPERS,2. TANEJA DEVELOPERS,3. INTIME PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,4. DISTRICT TOWN AND COUNTRY - Opp.Party(s)

Surender malik

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.45 of 2014

                                Instituted on:11.02.2014

                                Date of order:12.08.2015

 

Mrs. Arunima Sharma wife of SD Sharma, r/o H.No.2, Canal Colony, Bandepur, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

1.TDI Infrastructure Ltd., 9 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Director.

2. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., GT road, Kundli, Sonepat through its Managing Director.

3.Intime Promoters (P) Ltd. 9 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Director.

4.District Town and Country Planning, Sector 15, HUDA Building, Sonepat.

5.Estate Officer, HUDA, Sector 15, Sonepat.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Surender Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Virender Tyagi Adv. for respondent no.1 to 3.

           Sh. Manoj Attri, Adv. for respondent no.4.

           Sh. Ashok Bhardwaj, Adv.for respondent no.5.

          

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that one Satish Kumar has applied for a plot measuring 250 sq. yares and has paid Rs.4,15,600/- through cheque no.667562 dated 18.11.2005 vide receipt no.R-2/2856 dated 26.11.2005. The respondents no.1 to 3 allotted ID no.KR2-2856 and plot ID no.L55 against payment plan B at the rate of Rs.8312/- per sq. yards plus EDC and IDC and PLC to the said Satish Kumar and Satish Kumar paid an amount of Rs.2,57,175/- on 10.2.2006 vide cheque no.547381 and Rs.13,94,926/- on 19.11.2007 and in this way, total sum ofRs.20,67,701/- has been paid to the respondents no.1 to 3 upto 8.10.2008. On 13.8.2008 the complainant has purchased the said plot from Satish Kumar and the same was transferred in the name of the complainant and the  complainant has also paid an amount of Rs.2,18,125/- on 29.11.2009. As per payment schedule of the respondents no.1 to 3, an amount of Rs.2,07,800/- is to be paid at the time of possession. After the lapse of 8 years, the possession of the said plot have been delivered by the respondents no.1 to 3 to the complainant. The complainant has also requested to the respondents no.1 to 3 to execute and register the sale deed as she is ready to pay the balance amount, but of no use.  The respondents no.4 and 5 are bound to watch the interest of the plot, but they are also not performing their duties. The complainant has come to know that the respondents no.1 to 3 have not developed L block so far as there is a dispute in between the farmers and landowners. The basic facilities i.e. road, sewerage, water supply and electricity have not been started so

far in block L where the respondents no.1 to 3 have allotted the plot no.L-55 to the complainant  and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

          During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant has filed an application for amendment of complaint which was allowed and para no.7(a) was added in the complaint submitting therein that  the respondents no.1 to 3 have allotted a new plot no.L-464 in lieu of plot no.L-55 and the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.207800/- at the time of possession and the remaining amount has already been paid by the complainant through various installments and the complainant is ready to pay the said amount and is ready to bear the stamp and registration charges and other misc. charges for the purpose of execution and registration of conveyance deed of plot no.L-464 but the respondents no.1 to 3 raised a demand of Rs.356727/- on account of club member Rs.50000/-, TDI facilities and maintenance Rs.20000/-, TDI Infra. Ltd. Rs.286727/- which is against the demand of plot no.L-464 and the same is not binding upon the rights of the complainant, and the respondents no.1 to 3 are only liable to charge from the complainant Rs.207800/-as there is no club and other facilities on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3 at the site.  The complainant is ready to pay Rs.207800/- to the respondents no.1 to 3 and she is entitled to get Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service rendered by the respondents no.1 to 3 as the possession of the plot has not been given to the complainant till today.

2.        The respondents no.1 to 3, 4 & 5 have appeared and they have filed their written statement separately.

          The respondents no.1 to 3 in their written statement have submitted that an amount of Rs.2,07,800/- is payable by the complainant  at the time of offer of possession. The complainant herself has failed to make the payment of installments on due dates. The respondents no.1 to 3 are regularly developing the project and are continuously delivering the possession of the plots to various allottees after development at the site.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint since the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          The respondent no.4 in its written statement has submitted that  the respondent no.3 has obtained licence no.754 of 2006 dated 21.4.2006. It is a bilateral issue between buyer and seller respondents no.1 to 3 and there is no cause of action raised upon the respondent no.4. The dispute is between the complainant and respondents no.1 to 3 and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

          The respondent no.5 in its written statement has submitted that the respondents no.1 to 3 have to take the license for developing the private colony from the Commissioner Town Planning and it is the duty of the respondents no.1 to 3 to develop the said area as per provisions There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that total sum of Rs.2067701/- has been deposited in respect of the plot in question with the respondents no.1 to 3 and Rs.2,07,800/- is to be paid at the time of possession and as per the complainant, she is ready to pay the said amount.  She has also submitted that the respondents no.1 to 3 have not developed the block L as there is no basic facilities i.e. road, sewerage, water supply and electricity etc. in block L and the respondents no.1 to 3 are causing delay in handing over the physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3, 4 and 5 have also argued their case vehemently.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that keeping in view the order dated 31.8.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panchali Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.¸ the complainant is not liable to pay the parking charges to the respondent.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has further held that the promoter has no right to sell any portion of such building which is not ‘flat’ within the meaning of section 2(a-1) and the entire land & building has to be conveyed to the organization, the only right remains with the promoter is to sell unsold flats.  It is, thus, clear that the promoter has no right to sell ‘stilt parking spaces’ as these are neither ‘flat’ nor appurtenant or attachment to a ‘flat’.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has also argued on the point that the complainant is liable to pay the parking charges to the complainant.  But keeping in view the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we are of the view that the respondent has no right to charge the parking charges from the complainant and the demand of amount raised by the respondent under the head of parking charges is totally wrong, illegal and unjustified.

          We have perused the final statement of account.  In our view, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.2,07,800/- towards basic sale value, Rs.10,000/- as miscellaneous expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards interest free maintenance security and Rs.62400/- on account of stamp duty.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to accept the aforesaid amount from the complainant.  The other demand of the respondents  for Rs.50,000/- towards club membership, Rs.48581/- as interest on EDC are also wrong and illegal and the complainant is not liable to pay the same to the respondents.  The respondents are further directed to hand over the possession of the plot no.L-464 to the complainant and to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant after receiving the balance payment.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

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

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

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

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:12.08.2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.