Haryana

Sonipat

434/2013

ANIL JAIN S/O SAGAR CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,2. BRANCH MANAGER TDI INDRASTRUCTURE LTD. ,3. TDI CUSTOMER SUPPOET CENTRE - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL JAIN

20 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                                Complaint No.434 of 2013

                                Instituted on:24.10.2013

                                Date of order:20.08.2015

 

 

Anil Jain son of  Shri Sagar Chand Jain, resident of H.No.79/24, Shiv Nagar, Sonepat.

 

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (formerly known as Intimate Promoters Pvt. Ltd.) Regd. Office 9 kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-01.

2.The Manager/Director, TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Intimate Promoters Pvt. Ltd.) Regd. Office 9 kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-01.

3.The Manager/Director, Customer Support Centre, G7, Ground Floor, Connaught Circus(Opp. Madras Hotel Block) New Delhi.

 

 

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

 

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

           Sh. Virender Tyagi Adv. for respondents.

          

 

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 he had booked and was allotted flat no.U1-304 measuring 1110 sq. feet for total sum of Rs.24,81,002/- vide booking no.B000017/13975/06-06 dated 21.2.2006 in TDI City, Sonepat in Kingsbury Project.  The respondents are claiming the parking charges to which they have no right to do so.   The respondents have also claimed additional charges for super covered area measuring 95 sq. feet which is also wrong and illegal.   The respondents have claimed Rs.36021/- as penal interest on alleged delayed payment. However, they have not paid any interest on Rs.1,96,153/-  paid by the complainant in advance for 2 years & 4 months. The complainant has already paid the entire cost of the said allotted flat and nothing is due towards the complainant. The respondents were bound to hand over the actual physical possession of the said flat to the complainant within 3 years from the date of booking, but they have failed to fulfill their commitment.  The respondents are unnecessarily claiming the illegal extra charges from the complainant towards super covered area, open parking charges and interest on delayed payment.  The respondents are also claiming sales tax on basic at the rate of 3.89% w.e.f. 1.4.2012 instead of original sales tax at the rate of 2.57% and sales tax on PLC & EFFC at the rate of 12.36% instead of original sales tax on PLC and EFFC at the rate of 10.3%. It is also further submitted that due to deficient services rendered by the respondents, the complainant is residing in rental premises at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that as per terms and conditions of the flat buyer agreement, the respondent is within its rights to charge parking charges, super area charges and interest for the delayed period.  At the time of execution of advance registration form and execution of flat buyer agreement, the area of flat was tentative and the total area is calculated at the time of offering possession. However, there is no question of paying any interest to the complainant on the alleged amount.  The complainant did not make any payment/installment in advance.  As per document dated 22.1.2014 an amount of Rs.5,74,857/- is still outstanding against the complainant. There was no committing on the part of the respondents to deliver the physical possession of the said flat to the complainant within a period of 3 years.    The sales tax is statutory levy and the same has been demanded by the respondents in original.  The respondents have denied the fact that the complainant is not liable to pay the taxes, PLC and EFFC and other charges to the complainant.   The demands raised by the respondent are quite legal and are binding upon the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief 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.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that he had booked and was allotted flat no.U1-304 measuring 1110 sq. feet for total sum of Rs.24,81,002/- vide booking no.B000017/13975/06-06 dated 21.2.2006 in TDI City, Sonepat in Kingsbury Project.  The respondents are claiming the parking charges to which they have no right to do so.   The respondents have also claimed additional charges for super covered area measuring 95 sq. feet which is also wrong and illegal.   The respondents have claimed Rs.36021/- as penal interest on alleged delayed payment. However, they have not paid any interest on Rs.1,96,153/-  paid by the complainant in advance for 2 years & 4 months. The complainant has already paid the entire cost of the said allotted flat and nothing is due towards the complainant. The respondents were bound to hand over the actual physical possession of the said flat to the complainant within 3 years from the date of booking, but they have failed to fulfill their commitment.  The respondents are unnecessarily claiming the illegal extra charges from the complainant towards super covered area, open parking charges and interest on delayed payment.  The respondents are also claiming sales tax on basic at the rate of 3.89% w.e.f. 1.4.2012 instead of original sales tax at the rate of 2.57% and sales tax on PLC & EFFC at the rate of 12.36% instead of original sales tax on PLC and EFFC at the rate of 10.3%. It is also further submitted that due to deficient services rendered by the respondents, the complainant is residing in rental premises at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that as per terms and conditions of the flat buyer agreement, the respondent is within its rights to charge parking charges, super area charges and interest for the delayed period.  At the time of execution of advance registration form and execution of flat buyer agreement, the area of flat was tentative and the total area is calculated at the time of offering possession. However, there is no question of paying any interest to the complainant on the alleged amount.  The complainant did not make any payment/installment in advance.  As per document dated 22.1.2014 an amount of Rs.5,74,857/- is still outstanding against the complainant. There was no committing on the part of the respondents to deliver the physical possession of the said flat to the complainant within a period of 3 years.    The sales tax is statutory levy and the same has been demanded by the respondents in original.  The respondents have denied the fact that the complainant is not liable to pay the taxes, PLC and EFFC and other charges to the complainant.   The demands raised by the respondent are quite legal and are binding upon the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

5.        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 the complainant is not liable to pay Rs.36240/- demanded by the respondents under the head of interest on EDC, because the respondents have not produced any record regarding the payment paid by the respondents to the State Govt under the head of interest on EDC.  In our view, the complainant has been able to prove that he has paid all the amount regarding the installments and EDC as and when demanded by the respondents.

          The perusal of the document R3 shows that the respondents have demanded Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant as vehicle parking charges.  On the contrary, the document C2 placed on record by the complainants shows that open car parking charges were Rs.75000/-.  So, in our view, the complainant is only liable to pay Rs.75000/- to the respondents instead of Rs.1,25,000/- towards the open car parking.

          Further the document C5 shows that the installment of Rs.1,96,154/- was due on 17.12.2010.  But the respondents demanded the installment of the said amount from the complainant on 5.8.2008 and the complainant has paid the said amount of installment to the respondents on 5.8.2008.  So, in the view, the respondents wrongly demanded the installment of Rs.196154/- from the complainant, which was actually due on 17.12.2010, but they got it deposited from the complainant on 5.8.2008.  So, in our view, the complainant is legally liable to get interest on the amount of Rs.196154/- w.e.f. 5.8.2008 to 17.12.2010.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 09% per annum on the amount of Rs.196154/- to the complainant w.e.f. 5.8.2008 to 17.12.2010.  The respondents are further directed either to pay the amount of interest to the complainant in cash or to adjust the amount of interest in the account or in the amount which is to be paid by the complainant to the respondents in future.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment or under the head of litigation expenses.

 

          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:20.08.2015.