Haryana

StateCommission

A/1293/2016

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DINESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY GHANGAS

18 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No  :      1293 of 2016

Date of Institution:     29.12.2016

Date of Decision :      18.08.2017

 

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Sushant City, Panipat through its Authorized Representative Sh. Chinmoy Bera.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Dinesh Kumar Nandwani son of Sh. Ved Parkash Nandwani, resident of Ward No.8, Near Aggarwal Dharamshala, Main Bazar Safidon, District Jind.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.                                   

Present:               Shri Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Sandeep Malik, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited-opposite party (for short ‘Builder’) is in appeal against the order dated October 14^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Dinesh Kumar Nandwani -complainant was allowed. For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“6.     So, in our view the respondents have wrongly charged the interest upon the EDC from the complainant and definitely the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the same from the respondents.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of interest which was charged by the respondents on the EDC and the said amount is directed to be paid to the complainant within a period of thirty days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the said amount shall fetch interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its actual realization.  The parties concerned be communicated of the said order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

2.      Firstly a few admitted facts. The builder entered into an agreement dated July 23^rd, 2009 (Annexure A-1) with Anup Ahuja son of Nand Lal Ahuja.  Lateron, the complainant purchased Plot No.D1-0463, admeasuring 239 sq. yards/200 sq. metres approximately, at the rate of Rs.2038/- per square yard (Rs.2437.4 per sq. metre) Sushant City, Panipat.  It is not in dispute that there was any default on the part of the complainant in paying the amount of EDC as per the agreement (Annexure A-1). 

3.      The only plea raised by learned counsel for the builder is that the complainant was liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount of Extra Development Charges (EDC) because the builder entered into an agreement dated September 22^nd, 2006 (Annexure A-4) with the Government of Haryana through Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. 

4.      As per clause 1 (b) i) of the agreement (Annexure A-4), the builder was to pay EDC to Haryana Urban Development Authority through the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana either in lump sum within 30 days from the date of grant of licence or in eight equal six monthly installments of 12.5% each, that is, first installment was to be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of grant of licence and balance 87.5% in seven equal six monthly installments alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum which was to  be charged on unpaid portion of the amount. 

5.      On the basis of this agreement (Annexure A-4), the builder demanded the interest at the rate of 15% on the installments EDC.

6.      Learned counsel for the builder has fairly conceded at bar that there is no clause in the agreement (Annexure A-1) that at any point of time, the complainant was liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% on the installments of EDC rather he has stated that the complainant had paid the installments.  Since the amount of EDC was paid by the complainant to the builder as per agreement (Annexure A-1), so, question of charging the interest on the basis of agreement whatsoever executed between the builder and Government of Haryana is not warranted.

7.      For the reasons recorded supra, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 18.08.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK