Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/206/2012

Balwinder Kaur w/o shri Balwan Singh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansal Housing & Construction - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Sangwan

26 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                         Complaint No. 206  of  2012.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 29.02.2012

                                                                                         Date of decision: 26.05.2017

Balwinder Kaur aged about 40 years wife of Shri Balwan Singh, R/o 243/3, Saraswati Sugar Mill Colony, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. Regd. Office at 15 UGF, Indra Paraksh, 21, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi-110 001.
2. Ansal Housing & construction Ltd. Yamuna Nagar through its concerned officer.                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                 … Respondent.

 

BEFORE        SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.  

 

Present: Sh. Satish Sangwan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Sushil Kaushal, Advocate, counsel for respondents  

 

ORDER

 

1.                          Complainant Balwinder Kaur has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that respondents (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) through their agents instigated the complainant to purchase the plot in residential colony, known as Sushant City, Yamuna Nagar and accordingly the complainant purchased a plot bearing No. B-089 vide allotment letter dated 29.10.2010. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- on dated 16.08.2010, Rs. 6,44,238/- on 29.09.2010, Rs. 2,74,362/- on 29.09.2010, Rs.1,30,000/- on 16.08.2010, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 14.08.2010 and Rs. 3,45,525/- in the month of August, 2010. Thereafter, complainant also paid further amount to the OPs from time to time. As per terms and conditions of the Ops, it was settled that external development charges (EDC) will not be enhanced as the same has been finalized. Now, the complainant is in receipt of a letter from the OPs vide which they have demanded a sum of Rs. 987/- per sq. yard increase on the plot in question which is against the terms and conditions. Upon which, the complainant requested so many times to withdraw the letter but the official of the OPs refused to do the same which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to withdraw the letter of enhancement as null and void and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 i.e. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections that Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. is a separate entity from the Ansal Housing and Construction and the matter is between the complainant and Ansal Housing. Keeping in view the objection, counsel for the complainant moved an application to delete the name of Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. and impleaded the Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. which was allowed by this Forum vide order dated 08.11.2012.

            On fresh notice OPs No.1 & 2 i.e. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is hopelessly time barred; the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable because the complainant executed an agreement and signed form under took to avoid by terms and conditions of the allotment letter but the complainant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 29.10.2010. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant besides the installments, was liable to pay the amount of EDC, IDC, Common Maintenance, Stamp Duty, Registration, External Electrification, Taxes, amount of increased area, increased area EDC, IDC and other allied charges in extra; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; the Deed of Convince of the subjected unit has been executed and got registered in the name of complainant on 12.08.2014. The complainant through the said sale deed had the full knowledge, the External Development charges (EDC) has been charged by the OPs on behalf of Development Municipal/Government Authority and on merit it has been admitted that the complainant purchased a unit measuring 204.52 sq. yards and convince deed bearing No. 3806 dated 12.08.2014 has already been executed and got registered in favour of the complainant. It has been further mentioned that complainant defaulted in deposit of dues of the OPs in time as per terms of clause 15 & 17 of the allotment letter despite of repeated requests. The fixation of EDC for various is in accordance with the notifications published by State Govt. from time to time. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                     In support of her case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copies of receipts for depositing the amounts as Annexure C-1 to C-9, Photo copy of impugned letter for demanding additional charges of EDC as Annexure C-10, Photo copy of status of the installments as Annexure C-11 to C-13, Photo copy of allotment letter as Annexure C-14 and C-15, Photo copy of application under RTI Act as Annexure C-16 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence his own affidavit as Annexure RA and documents such as photo copy of sale deed /convince deed as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of request letter for extended EDC charges as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of statement of account as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     The only version of the complainant is that OPs have issued a letter (Annexure C-10) vide which they have demanded additional charges of EDC at the rate of 987/- per sq. yard which is totally illegal, wrong and liable to be quashed because as per terms and conditions of the OPs it was settled that External Development Charges (EDC) will not be enhanced as the same has been finalized. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the receipts of amount deposited with the OPs Annexure C-1 to C-9 and argued that the complainant had paid huge amount to the Ops against the plot in question and now the officials of the Ops has wrongly and illegally issued the impugned letter and requested for quashing the same.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued at length that the letter in question has been issued as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the complainant is bound to pay the EDC charges. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the allotment letter Annexure C-14 and C-15 and argued that in these letters also it has been specifically mentioned that “ above payment plans are applicable for the payment of basic cost including PLC, if any. EDC, IDC, Common maintenance, stamp duty, registration, external electrification, taxes and other allied charges if any are extra and shall be payable as and when demanded” and argued that these conditions has been clearly imposed in the allotment letter by the Ops and accordingly, the complainant is liable to pay the enhanced development charges demanded by the letter in question Annexure C-10. Further learned counsel for the OPs argued that the conveyance deed had already been executed between the parties and the complainant had already paid the amount of Additional Development Charges in three installments i.e. Rs. 67,287/- each on dated 20.02.2012, 29.03.2012 and 20.04.2012 respectively and draw our attention towards the account statement Annexure R-3 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove any violations of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter in question. We have perused the allotment letter placed on file by the complainant herself as Annexure C-14 and C-15 in which it has been specifically mentioned that “the Total Plot Price Net of Discount and including PLC if any but excluding EDC, IDC, External Electrification, Common Maintenance Stamp duty, Registration Charges, taxes and other allied charges which are payable additionally as per the terms of allotment”. Meaning thereby that complainant was liable to pay the EDC/IDC charges to the OPs Company. However, it may be at the rate of 987/- or otherwise. Further in the conveyance deed (Annexure R-1) at serial No.6 wherein it has been mentioned that vendee(s) hereby agree to bear on demand from the vendor or its authorized representative/ nominee on prorate share of any additional EDC or IDC charges or any other charges as may be leveled by the authority. Meaning thereby that the complainant was liable to pay the additional development charges, if any, which was levied by any authority on the vendors i.e. OPs but neither the complainant has placed on file any cogent evidence that any charges of external development charges has been levied on the OPs by any authority nor the Ops has placed on file any documents relating to the demand of any additional Development Charges, demanded by any authority. During the course of arguments, counsel for the parties brought into notice of this Forum that some complaints are pending before the Hon’ble Lok Adalat/ Utility Court at Jagadhri and some complaints are pending before the Hon’ble High Court, Chandigarh in regard to the matter in dispute but both the parties have failed to place on file any order/judgment  of any courts, if any, i.e. Hon’ble court of PLA or Hon’ble High Court.

10.                   Keeping in view the above noted circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, hence, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court/Appropriate Authority for redressal of her grievances whatsoever.

11.                   Resultantly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate court, if so desired. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 26.05.2017.                                                              

 

                                                                                                                

 

                                                                                     ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                                                               DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

                             

                     (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)          (S.C.SHARMA)

                MEMBER                                          MEMBER