Haryana

Karnal

28/2013

Amit Kumar Garg S/o Suresh Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansal Landmark Townships Privat Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sudhakar Mittal

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint no.28 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt.: 14.1.2013

                                                                Date of decision  27.4.2016

 

Amit Kumar Garg son of Sh. Suresh Chand, resident of House no. DF292, inside Jundla Gate, near Jain Ghati, Karnal.

                                                                             …………..Complainant.      

                                                Versus

1. Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt. Ltd., having its office situated at 210, Ansal Bhavan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

2. Manager/ Authorized signatory- Ansal Landmark Townships Pvt., Ltd., near village Kambopura, National Highway-G.T. Road, Karnal.

                                                    

…………Opposite parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                     Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

 Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh. Sudhakar Mittal Advocate for complainant.

 Sh. Ashok Rathi Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer  Protection Act 1986, on the averments that the plot no.B-1027 measuring 166.5 Sq. Mts. at Sushant City, Karnal, was allotted to Deepak Kumar son of Sh. Jagsoran Singh r/o House no.392 Sector 13 Extension, Karnal by Opposite party no.1. The said plot was transferred in his favour by the opposite party no.1 vide letter dated 25.6.201. Before transferring the plot in his favour opposite party no.2 obtained a draft no.275286 dated 5.6.2011  for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and receipt dated 2.9.2011 was issued in that regard. The opposite parties had given credit of Rs.4,18,200/- deposited by the earlier allottee while transferring the said plot in his favour. Thereafter, he deposited 9^th installment of Rs.69,696/- on 16.1.2012 and receipt regarding the same was issued by the opposite party no.2 on 17.1.2012. As per transfer letter, agreement and endorsement, only 10^th and final installment of Rs.69,696/- was due towards him, which was payable at the time of handing over the possession of the plot. However, the opposite party no.1 vide letter dated 9.11.2012 raised the demand of Rs.1,29,907/- @ Rs.780.22 per sq. mt. as enhanced External Development Charges ( EDC). He approached the office of opposite party no.2 to lodge the protest against the said demand and also requested for refund of Rs.50,000/- charged from him as administrative charges before transferring the plot in his favour. Moreover, the opposite parties delayed the handing over the possession of the plot. He asked the opposite parties not to charge Rs.1,29,907/- as EDC charges, refund Rs.50,000/- charged from him as administrative charges and pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to his request. Such conduct of opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, which caused him mental pain and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of this complaint was given to opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action; that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of Haryana Urban Development Authority as necessary party.

                   On merits, it has been admitted that the plot was transferred in favour of the complainant, vide letter dated 25.6.2011 and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was received from him as administrative charges.. It has also been admitted that the complainant had deposited 9^th installment and only the 10^th installment was due towards him. It has been submitted that the Government of Haryana revised the rate of EDC and letter was issued to the opposite parties by Haryana Urban Development Authority and Director Town and Country Planning on 17.8.2012. According to the said letter EDC was enhanced from 20.42 lac per acre to 27.68 lac per acre for license no.264 of 2007 and  from 24.71 lac per acre to 33.50 lac per acre in respect of license no.60 of 2009. Accordingly, the letter dated 9.11.2012 was issued to the complainant for raising the demand of Rs.1,29,907/- @ Rs.780.22 per sq. mts. as per the said letter for enhancement of the EDC. The complainant was liable to pay the said amount  as per clause 2 of the plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 31.8.2010. It has further pleaded that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was rightly charged from the complainant for transferring the plot in his name as administrative charges and the complainant paid the same with his free will and did not raise any objection at the time of transfer of the plot in his favour. It has been denied that the complainant was entitled to get compensation for delayed  delivery of the possession. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C6 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Dheeraj Malik Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to R7 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.       

6.                The plot no.B-1027 measuring 166.5 Sq.Mts situated at Sushant City Karnal was allotted by the opposite parties to Deepak Kumar, who sold the same to the complainant. Therefore, the allotment was transferred in favour of the complainant vide letter dated 25.6.2011. Before transferring the plot in the name of the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- was got deposited from him by the opposite parties as administrative charges. The complainant had deposited the 9^th installment, which became due to after transfer of the plot in his name and only the 10^th installment remained to be paid, when the opposite party no.1 raised demand of Rs.1,29,907/-, vide letter dated 9.11.2012, as enhanced EDC. The complainant has alleged that the demand for EDC raised by the opposite parties and getting deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- from him as administrative charges before transfer the plot in his favour were illegal. The complainant has also claimed compensation for delay in delivery of possession of the plot.

7.                During the course of arguments counsel for the parties admitted that the enhanced EDC demanded by Town and Country Planning Department Haryana from the Project Developers has been stayed by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in civil writ petition no.5835 of 2013. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot recover the enhanced EDC from the complainant till disposal of the said writ petition, because the recovery would be subject to the decision.

8.                It is pertinent to note that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- for getting transferred the plot in his name from the name of Deepak Kumar, to whom the plot was originally allotted. The opposite parties had demanded the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards administrative charges for transferring the plot in the name of the complainant in their record. The complainant did not raise any objection at that time rather he willingly deposited the said amount. Therefore, at this stage he cannot agitate that the demand of administrative charges was illegal or arbitrary in any manner, rather he is estopped from raising such plea.

9.                Now, the question arises whether there was any delay in delivery of possession of the plot to the complainant by the opposite parties. Initially, the plot was allotted to Deepak Kumar and lateron the same was transferred in the name of the complainant, vide letter dated 25.6.2011. The copy of the agreement between Deepak Kumar and opposite party no.1 is Ex.R2. A perusal of the agreement shows that no time limit regarding the delivery of the possession of the plot was fixed. The said agreement was executed on 30.8.2010. The 9^th installment was to be paid within 16 months of the allotment. The remaining installment of 10% was agreed to be paid at the time of possession. Generally, the period of 30 months is fixed for delivery of possession to the allottee, from the date of agreement. In the absence of any time limit fixed in the agreement it can be considered that the opposite parties were to deliver the possession to the complainant within 30 months of execution of the agreement i.e. up to February 2013. The present complaint was filed by the complainant on 14.1.2013.

10.              It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainant due to pendency of the present complaint. Moreover, possession is delivered only after payment of the entire amount. The complainant did not pay the 10^th installment, rather raised dispute regarding demand of EDC and the amount of Rs.50,000/- charged by the opposite parties as administrative charges for transferring the plot in  his name. Learned counsel for the complainant could not point out any document indicating as to within which period the opposite parties were bound to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant and failing which what amount as penalty was agreed to be paid by them. Under such facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any inordinate and intentional delay on the part of the opposite parties in delivery of possession of the plot to the complainant. Therefore, no compensation can be allowed to the complainant in this regard.

11.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we partly accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties not to recover the enhanced EDC till decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in civil writ petition no.5835 of 2013 and take step regarding enhanced EDC as per decision of the Hon’ble High Court. Opposite parties are further directed to deliver the possession of the plot in question to the complainant within 30 days of depositing by him the 10^th installment which became due. However, the opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 27.4.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member