R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT

1. M/s. Omaxe Ltd. through its Managing Director and through its Authorised Representative have jointly filed the present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the Impugned Order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal No. FA/988/2014, whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by Omaxe Limited (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party) against the Order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Forum’).By the said Order, the District Forum while allowing the Complaint filed by Dr. Anand Jain (hereafter referred to as the Complainant), had directed the Opposite Party to execute Buyer’s Agreement with the Complainant, if not executed yet, and to hand over physical possession of Plot No. 1839-C.The Opposite Parties were also directed to accept the remaining amount from the Complainant without any extra charges and to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited with them, for delay from 1^st January 2007, till delivery of actual possession.The Opposite Party was also directed to pay ₹25,000 towards compensation.

    

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint, are that the Dr. Anand Jain, the Complainant, had booked a plot having an area of 300 sq yards in Omaxe City Project, G.T. Road, Sonepat, launched by Opposite Party and paid a sum ₹11,11,500/-, i.e., 95% of the total consideration on 16.12.2005 for which a receipt No.39222 dated 10.01.2006 was issued.On demand of the Opposite Party, the Complainant further deposited a sum of ₹3,30,000/- towards External Development Charge (hereinafter referred to as ‘EDC’)/Internal Development Charges (hereinafter referred to as ‘IDC’) vide Receipt No. 184625 dated 03.04.2007.Accordingly, the Complainant was allotted Plot No. 1839-C vide letter dated 26.9.2006. The Complainant was surprised to receive a letter dated 15.07.2010 from Opposite Party informing him that his earlier allotted Plot No. 1839 – C of 300 sq. yard had been replaced with Plot No.1782 – B of 299 sq. yd.Subsequently, vide letter dated 02.09.2011 the Opposite Party demanded ₹1,11,805/- towards EDC/IDC charges, whereas Complainant had already paid 100% EDC/IDC vide receipt No. 184625 dated 3.4.2007. Despite several requests, Opposite Party did not deliver the possession of the Plot.As per the Rules of Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, the possession of the vacant plot was to be given to the Complainant in two years from the date of allotment, i.e. 26.09.2006. Since all the persuasive efforts to get possession went fruitless, alleging deficiency in Service on part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking following directions to the Opposite Party to:-

   “(i)    deliver physical and vacant possession of Plot No. 1839-C;

    

   (ii)    pay interest as prevailing in the market on the amount deposited by the Complainant due to delay in deliver the possession of the Plot;

    

   (iii)    Compensation of ₹50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment;

    

   (iv)   to declare letter dated 2.9.2011 demanding EDC/IDC, as null and void with litigation cost of ₹22,000/-.”

    

3. Upon notice the Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party.The Opposite Party pleaded that the earlier allotted Plot No. 1839-C was replaced with Plot No. 1782-B in Block-D as per agreed terms by which Opposite Party was entitled to change the Plot. Vide letter dated 02.09.2011, a sum of ₹1,11,805/- was demanded towards EDC as the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Chandigarh demanded for additional EDC, which the Complainant did not deposit despite repeated reminders. The Complainant was not entitled to get the possession of the Plot as he did not pay due amount of ₹5,06,173/- and possession could only be given after payment of all the dues.Since the Complainant failed to deposit the due amount despite repeated reminders, the allotment of the Plot was cancelled. The Opposite Party denied any kind of deficiency in Service or Unfair Trade Practices on its part and prayed for dismissal of Complaint with heavy cost.

    

4. On appraisal of the material available on record and evidence adduced before it, the District Forum observed that as per letter dated 01.09.2006, the Internal Development Charges (IDC) was included in the basic cost of the Plot and cannot be charged separately.So, the Opposite Party was not entitled to charge IDC from the Complainant.Further, the Opposite Party had already charged ₹3,30,000/- on account of External Development Charges (EDC) from the Complainant. The Opposite Party had not placed on record any document regarding enhanced EDC. The Government had also not demanded any enhanced EDC from the Opposite Party.So, the Opposite Party was not justified in demanding the enhanced EDC from the Complainant.The Complainant had already paid ₹3,30,000/- on 27.07.2006 towards EDC. Accordingly, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the Complainant had established the deficiency in Service on the part of Opposite Party that they were utilizing huge amount of money without providing any services to him. Accordingly, the District Forum allowed the Complaint in aforementioned terms.

    

5. Aggrieved by the Order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the District Forum, the Opposite Party filed an Appeal before the State Commission. After hearing both the Parties and on perusal of material on record, the State Commission vide Order dated 16.07.2015 had dismissed the Appeal.The State Commission had observed as under:-

   “The Complainant made payment of ₹11,11,500/- on December 12^th, 2005 and ₹3,30,000 on April 3^rd, 2007 and till now is waiting for possession. The Opposite Parties are engaged in commercial activities of development and construction and are earning profits. Even their letter dated December  24^th 2012 (Exhibit R-3/A)vide which the possession was stated to have been offered, it is clearly mentioned that development was still not complete. Since possession could only be offered after the development and same having not been done, the Opposite Parties were rightly held deficient in service.

    

   In view of the above, the Order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence the Appeal is dismissed.”

    

6. Aggrieved by the Order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the State Commission, the Opposite Parties have filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

    

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length.

    

8. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant is a chronic defaulter from the beginning.He has not paid the amount as per payment plan opted by him.He was provisionally allotted Plot No. 1839 C vide letter dated 26.09.2006 but due to change in tentative plan of Township Project the earlier tentative allotment of plot No. 1839 C was changed to Plot No. 1782-B vide letter dated 15.07.2010 and the change of plot was never objected to by the Respondent.As per payment plan, there was outstanding amount of ₹1,11,805/- since 14.01.2006 which the Respondent failed to deposit despite letters and reminders dated 02.09.2011, 07.04.2012 and 19.09.2012.Possession was offered to the Complainant vide letter dated 24.12.2012 with a request to deposit ₹ 4,89,432/- towards balance sale consideration, outstanding amount with agreed interest, additional charges playable at the time of offering possession including charges towards enhanced EDC.The Complainant did not deposit the demanded amount but filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum without taking into consideration the facts that the Complainant is a chronic defaulter from the beginning and change in allotment was as per agreed terms, passed an erroneous order and awarded interest and compensation which is against the law. The State Commission too has committed a grave error in dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and affirming the Order passed by the District Forum without proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. As such Orders passed by both the Fora below deserves to be set aside and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    

9. Per contra, the Complainant, who is appearing in person, submitted that Payment Plan quoted by the Opposite Party is a fabricated document as it did not bear the signatures of the Complainant, whereas the agreed Payment Plan dated 12.12.2005, duly signed by the Opposite Party’s Officer and bears the Company’s seal is Exhibit R-1 with the Complaint and the State Commission has taken the said Exhibit as a pivotal document and has referred in its Order dated 16.07.2015.He has already paid 95% of the cost of the plot including Internal Development Charges and External Development Charges.Despite that the Opposite Party again demanded additional / enhanced External Development Charges without providing / placing on record any document showing that the Government demanded additional EDC from Opposite Party.The Opposite Party has been using his hard earned money for more than 14 years without giving him any house, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum was justified in awarding interest and compensation.He supported the detailed well-reasoned orders passed by Fora below and prayed that the Revision Petition be dismissed.

    

10. There is no dispute that the Complainant had booked a Plot admeasuring 300 Sq. Yards with the Opposite Party and paid₹11,11,500/-, i.e., 95% of the total consideration on 16.12.2005. He further paid a sum of ₹3,30,000/- towards 100% EDC/IDC on 03.04.2007. As per the Rules and Regulations of Directorate of Town and Country Planning, the physical possession of the allotted plot was to be delivered to the Complainant within two years from the date of allotment i.e. latest by January, 2007. However, the Opposite Party despite having received 95% of the total consideration of the Plot on 16.12.2005 and 100% EDC/IDC on 30.04.2007 has failed to deliver the possession within the prescribed time.

     

11. When the Revision Petition came up for admission hearing on 10.09.2015, we had passed the following Order:-

    “De hors, the outcome of the present revision petition, the petitioner directly remitting a sum of Rs.7,500/- to the respondent by way of demand draft being travelling and sundry expenses, issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 11.3.2016.

     

Petitioner has moved an IA No.5941 of 2015 for stay of execution. Heard. In the meanwhile, only the execution of the order pertaining to payment of interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount lying depositing till the delivery of possession and the compensation is stayed provided that the petitioner delivers the possession of the plot No.1782-B, Block D to the complainant after receiving the balance 5% of the said  plot, within four weeks.”

1. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid Order, it is clear that the notice was directed to be issued to the Respondent limited to the question of interest @12% and compensation of ₹25,000/- awarded by the District Forum to the Complainant, subject to handing over physical possession of Plot to the Complainant on payment of balance consideration.The aforesaid Order had been complied with by the Opposite Party and the Complainant had been handed over the possession of the Plot on 18.12.2015.

    

2. Now, the only question which remains to be considered by us is, as to whether the Fora below were justified in awarding interest @ 12% and compensation of ₹25,000/- to the Complainant for the delay of more than 8 years in handing over the physical possession of the Plot.The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Complainant was a chronic defaulter does not hold any water. The total sale consideration of the Plot was ₹11,64,001/- out of which a sum of ₹11,11,500/-, i.e., 95% was paid by the Complainant on 16.12.2005. The Complainant further paid an amount of ₹3,30,000/- on 03.04.2007 which was demanded by the Opposite Party towards 100% EDC/IDC. After receiving the substantial amount, the Opposite Party was under an obligation to hand over physical possession of the Plot to the Complainant by January, 2007. However, by its letter dated 24.12.2012, the Opposite Party has admitted that the construction of the allotted Plot is on the verge of completion which shows that till the said date, the completion was not complete.The only dispute between the parties was with regard to payment of ₹1,11,805/- which was demanded by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 02.09.2011 towards enhancement of EDC/IDC. There is concurrent finding of facts returned by both the Fora below that Internal Development Charges were included in the basic cost of the Plot and the Opposite Party has failed to lead a cogent evidence to the effect that there was an enhancement of the EDC/IDC charges by the Government which led to an Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party. The Complainant had booked the Plot in the year 2005 and the physical possession of the Plot was handed over to him after a long period of 8 years in 2015 only. Under these circumstances, the Complainant is entitled for a reasonable compensation for the mental agony, harassment and being deprived of the use of his hard earned money.

    

3. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the concurrent finding of facts rendered by the Fora below warranting our interference u/s 21(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.In the peculiar facts of the case, Parties are left to bear their own costs.