DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.204 of 2013

       Smt. Mithilesh Kumari Varma,

      W/o Sri A.B. Varma,  

       R/o D-4/693, Vijayant Khand,

       Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

                 1. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd.,

                    Registered Office- 115 Ansal Bhawan 16,

                    Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

                   Through its Proprietor.

                                                                                                                          2. Manager,

                     M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd.,

                   Branch/Local Office- Ground Floor YMCA Campus,

                   13, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow.                                                                                                               .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for directing the OPs to execute the sale deed in favour of the Complainant and to give possession of the plot without taking any holding charge and for payment of compensation of Rs.20,000.00 and cost of the complaint.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is she had applied for allotment of residential plot in the Hi Tech township known as Sushant Golf City and the OPs allotted Plot No.0087 in sector C Pocket 3 measuring 200 sq. mt. @ approximately Rs.3,480.00 per sq. mt. in Sushant Golf City Lucknow. The total cost of the aforesaid plot was Rs.7,30,800.00 which includes basic price of Rs.6,96,000.00 alongwith preferential location charges amount of Rs.34,800.00. After the allotment of the said plot, the Complainant deposited all the instalments well within time without any delay which is evident from customer ledger dated 31.01.2011 which also reveals that the debit and credit are same i.e. Rs.7,30,799.98 and the balance amounts to zero. The customer ledger dated 31.01.2011 further reveals that in addition to aforesaid amount the Complainant also deposited Rs.12,180.00 as administration charge amount alongwith its interest. OPs also demanded Rs.43,633.00 and thereafter on 13.02.2013 the Complainant deposited total Rs.43,633.00 which includes basic price Rs.41,760.00 alongwith Rs.1,873.00 interest. The receipt dated 13.02.2013 further reveals that the Complainant has also deposited common maintenance charges Rs.11,505.00, service tax Rs.148.00, interest Rs.1,289.00, service tax on accrual basis Rs.1,185.00, interest free maintenance deposit Rs.3,600.00, connection charges sewer Rs.5,000.00, connection charges water Rs.2,200.00, connection charges electricity Rs.23,700.00 and service tax administration/connection Rs.3,819.00 total amounting to Rs.52,446.00 on same day. The Complainant has deposited entire amount of aforesaid plot alongwith maintenance, sewer, water, electricity charge etc. still OP is not making the registered sale deed of aforesaid plot in favour of Complainant. After depositing the entire amount the Complainant approached to OPs for possession and registration of aforesaid plot but OPs is illegally demanding Rs.77,264.00 as holding charge for executing sale deed as well as possession from Complainant. In spite of oral as well as written requests the OPs are not giving the possession of the aforesaid plot after executing the sale deed in favour of the Complainant, hence this complaint.

          The OPs have filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the OPs’ Company is registered under the Company Act, 1956 and is a renowned construction Company. The Complainant is allottee of unit No.C/3/0087 which is a plot comprising an area of 200 sq. mt. Initially the said property was allotted to Sri Sanajy Grover and Smt. Meenu Grover which was later on transferred to the present Complainant by means of agreement for sale. The basic cost of

-3-

the said properties was Rs.7,30,800.00 which was availed by the allotte by way of development linked instalment plan. The OPs by way of letter dated 09.12.2010 offered the possession of the said property. Despite receipt of above mentioned letter the Complainant failed to deposit the outstanding amount due on his part and hence final call notice was issued to the Complainant dated 18.12.2010 in which the Complainant was asked to deposit the last instalment of 20% and to take the possession after depositing the outstanding dues. By the aforesaid notice the Complainant was warned about the payment of holding charges in case she fails to deposit the outstanding amount within the time prescribed. As per the provision clause 16 of the agreement between the parties, the allottee is bound to get the sale deed registered within six months from the date of intimation/offer of possession. The parties are bound by the above mentioned agreement but the Complainant has failed to execute the sale deed within six months from the date of effect of possession which is a violation of the mentioned agreement. In view of the above, the answering OP has levied the holding charges amounting to Rs.77,264.00. The Complainant is liable to deposit the holding charges and get the sale deed executed of the said property. The present complaint deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.

          The Complainant has also filed replication to the WS of the OPs.

          The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 2 annexures. The OPs have filed the affidavit of Sri Anil Kumar, Legal Officer with 3 annexures.

          Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

          In this case, it is not disputed that the Complainant was allotted a plot measuring 200 sq. mt. in the Sushant Golf City of the OPs, the cost of which was Rs.7,30,800.00. The disputed point according to the Complainant is that despite she

-4-

depositing the entire cost of the plot as also the other charges for maintenance, electricity etc, the OPs asked for holding charges of Rs.77,264.00 for the registration of the sale deed, hence the OPs committed unfair trade practice as also deficiency in service, whereas according to the OPs the Complainant had not deposited the outstanding amount and did not take possession, hence the holding charges were levied and they did not commit any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.

          Now, it is to be seen as to whether the Complainant has made entire payment due to her or not.

          In this regard, the Complainant has filed a photocopy of the customer ledger dated 31.01.2011 annexure No.1 where the amount due is shown as Rs.7,30,799.00 and the receipt also shows a sum of Rs.7,30,799.00 and the balance shown is zero. Now, this is a document pertaining to the OPs which shows that the amount which was due had already been paid by the Complainant and there was no amount remaining as due. Therefore, the contention of the OPs that the amount due was not paid by the Complainant does not hold any water as the amount appears to have been duly paid by the Complainant as per the document filed by the Complainant. On the contrary, there is no document produced by the OPs whereby it could be discerned that a certain amount was due and the Complainant had not paid that because of which the OPs were compelled to slap holding charges but the fact is that there is no such document. On the contrary the Complainant has produced documents showing that she had deposited the entire amount due well in time. Not only, that the Complainant has also made payment of other charges of Rs.43,633.00 as is evident from the photocopy of the receipt filed as Paper No.8 and 9 and a payment of Rs.52,446.00, paper No.10, for payment of charges of sewer, water, electricity etc. Thus, the Complainant has produced documents whereby it is clear that she had not only

-5-

made payment of the entire cost of the plot but also made payment of other charges as asked for by the OPs and thus the Complainant has complied with all the formalities for possession and registration of the sale deed for plot in question, but the OPs who had no legal right to slap holding charges, as discussed above, as the Complainant had made payment of entire amount due to her, did not give the possession of the plot and execute the sale deed in favour of the Complainant. Ultimately the Complainant being harassed by the OPs had to file a complaint case in this Forum. Obviously, the OPs have committed unfair trade practice as also deficiency in service, therefore the Complainant is entitled not only to have possession of the plot but also to get sale deed registered by the OPs without payment of any holding charge. Since the Complainant has been much harassed in this regard and the conduct of the OPs has been deplorable in not executing the sale deed despite fulfilling all the formalities, therefore the Complainant is also entitled to compensation as also cost of the litigation.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to give possession of the plot in question to the complainant and to execute the sale deed in favour of the Complainant without taking any holding charges.

The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.20,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.

          (Anju Awasthy)                                (Vijai Varma)

                 Member                                                  President Dated:  5       June, 2015