ORDER | ORDER
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
1. The aforementioned four complaints arise out of common facts and are being disposed of by this common order. Briefly stated facts leading to the filing of these complaints are as under:
2. The complainants in the four complaints had booked separate flats with the OP in the year 2011. Complainant Poonam Manchanda in Complaint no. 53/2015 had deposited a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs Six Lacs) at the time of the booking vide receipts issued in her favour. In June 2011 ,the OP had raised a demand at the rate of 15% of the Basic Sale Price whereafter she had deposited another sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-. In all, she had deposited a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- with the OP.
3. The complainants Ankur Manchanda and Neha Manchanda in complaint no. 50/2013 had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- at the time of booking and another sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- in September/ December 2011 after a demand at the rate of 15 % of the basic sale price was raised by the OP in June 2011. In all they had deposited a sum of Rs. 17,50,000/-.
4. Complainant Geetika Sachdeva and Chand Sachdeva had also deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- at the time of the booking and had further deposited a sum of Rs 8,50,000/- totaling to Rs. 13,50,000/- which amounts to 25% of the basic sale price of the flat booked by them. Complainant Ashok Kapoor in complaint no. 51/2015 had deposited a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- at the time of booking and a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- totaling to Rs. 17,00,000/- which amounted to 25% of the basic sale price of the flat booked.
5. The bone of contention between the complainants on the one side and the OP on the other are the other /additional charges which are sought to be levied on the complainants in the Apartment–Buyers Agreement which the complainants are being asked to execute. The complainants have raised the issue of the levy of these charges with the OP but the same has not been resolved which has led to the filing of the present complaints.
6. It is the case of the complainants that at the time of the booking of the flats , they were made to sign an application form (EX.C1) (Application for booking of the residential apartment in “Earth Copia” Gurgaon) according to which the basic sale price of the flat with a super area of 1835 Sq. Ft. was agreed to be Rs 54,13,250/-. The basic sale price for a flat having super area 2392 sq. ft. was agreed to be Rs. 77,74,000/-. However, when a Copy of the Apartment – Buyer’s agreement was received by the complainants, they realized that the total cost of the apartment including the cost of the additional charges sought to be levied will come to Rs. 75,23,455/- for the flat having a super area of 1835 sq.ft. and Rs. 97,44,616 for the flat having a super area 2392 sq. ft. The complainants have alleged that this increase on account of additional charges is unreasonable and uncalled-for. They have claimed that the additional charges sought to be levied on account of multiple Preferential Location Charges, Electricity Charges, Club Membership Charges, Charges For Covered Parking Space etc are illegal and cannot be levied. In the complaints, the complainants have dealt with all these additional charges separately and have claimed that these are unjust and illegal. The complainants case in respect of these levies under separate heads may be stated as under:
7.Preferential location charges: -
The preferential location charges are sought to be levied with regard to the location of the allotted flats in particular floors. It has to be remembered that the tower on which the flats have been built has a stilt above which the flats are located. Therefore, no flat is located on the ground floor and all the flats are located on the first floor and up to the 19th Floor. The application form Ex.C1 Contains a stipulation as to how floor preferential location charges will be applicable to the allottees of the flats. It reads as under:-
FLOOR PREFERENTIAL LOCATION CHARGES
01st & 02nd Floor 175/- per sq. ft.
03rd & 04th Floor 150/- per sq. ft.
05th & 06th Floor 125/- per sq. ft.
07th & 08 th Floor 100/- per sq. ft.
09th & 10th Floor 75/- per sq. ft.
11th to 15th Floor 50/- per sq. ft.
16th & 17th Floor 75/- per sq. ft.
18th & 19th Floor 100/- per sq. ft
8. It is the case of the complainants that the allotment of the flats has not been made to them according to their choices. It is also their case that they had not given any preferential location of the floors for the allotment of the flats in their favour. They have stated that flats on the particular floor were allotted to them by the OP. it is the case of the complainants that since they have not opted for any preferential floor located flat, they cannot be burdened with the additional charges on account of preferential floor location charges.
9. Corner / Front Preferential charges.
It has been pointed out by the complainants that road/ corner facing preferential location charges @Rs 75/– per sq. ft. are sought to be levied in addition to the floor location charges. It is the case of the complainants that all the flats constructed by the OP are corner flats. They have stated that they had not exercised any option for corner flats nor were in a position to exercise any preference in this regard in as much as there was a compulsion to accept the corner flat. They have, therefore, claimed that since it was not a matter of preference/option , the levy on account of corner/ front PLC was illegal.
10. External Electrification cost @ Rs 100/- per Sq. Ft.
It has been pointed out by the complainants that the price list given to them at the time of booking contained a stipulation that the external electrification charges and fire fighting charges both combined shall be levied @ Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. but in the Apartment – Buyer agreement it is shown for External Electrification charges only. The complainants apprehend that in future OP might seek more money on Account of fire fighting charges. It is, therefore, prayed by the complainant that the OP be directed to rectify the agreement and include fire fighting charges also within the charge of the external electrification.
11. Electric Connection Charges (ECC) of Rs. 1,00,000/-
It has been pointed out by the complainants that an additional charge of Rs. 1,00,000/- is sought to be levied on account of electric connection charges which was not mentioned in the price list supplied to them at the time of booking. This in spite of the fact that the price list contained external electrification charges as EEC and Digi Power backup. It is, therefore, the case of the complainants that the additional charge on account of electricity connection is not leviable.
12. DG Power Backup
The application form Ex.C1 contains a stipulation that Power Backup charges will be charged @ Rs. 20,000/- Per KVA. It is the case of the complainant that this charge was optional and cannot be levied compulsorily.
13. Interest bearing maintenance security
It is stated that at the time of booking , the complainants were informed that the maintenance security will carry an interest which is now sought to be made interest free. This is stated to be illegal.
14. Club Membership charges
The application form Ex. C1 carries a stipulation that club membership will be @ Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is the case of the complainants that the club membership charges cannot be made compulsory and the demand
which is being made as compulsory is illegal.
15. Covered Car Parking
It is the case of the complainant that a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is being levied on account of covered/ stilt car parking which is against the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nahal Chand Laloo Chand Pvt. Ltd Vs Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd 2010 AIR (SC) 3607 wherein it has been held that the covered / still car parking being mandated by the law cannot be charged separately. It has been prayed that this charge be ordered to be deleted.
16. External Development Charges and Infrastructural Development charge.
It is the case of the complainants that EDC and IDC charges are sought to be levied @ Rs. 373/- per Sq. Ft. of the super Area. It is stated that these are on the higher side and cannot be charged more than what is genuinely and legitimately payable to authorities under the law.
17. Interest
It is the case of the complainants that the OP has delayed the handing over of the possession of the flats and was also guilty of not resolving the issues raised by them from time to time. It is their case that the OP had therefore rendered itself liable to pay interest on the amount already deposited with it. The complainants have therefore prayed that the OP be directed to pay interest to them.
18. Some issues with regard to Documentation have also been raised by the complainants.
19. All the complaints have been contested by the Ops. The Ops have denied any deficiency in service on their part and have claimed that the complaints are liable to be dismissed as they are bereft of any merits. They have claimed that the complainants are related to each other and the flats have been booked for commercial purposes . paras 3 , 4 ,5, 6 ,8 ,9 ,10,11,17and 21 of the preliminary objections of the written statement (Poonam Manchanda V/s Earth Infrastructure) are relevant for the purpose of the decision of these complaints and are , therefore, reproduced as under :-
3. That without prejudice to the above, it is humbly submitted that the Complainant cannot be said to have any right to file the present complaint much less agitate the issues, as sought to be raised in the Complaint. It is a matter of record that the Complainant has only submitted an 'Application Form', wherein it has been clearly laid down, as understood by the Complainant himself, that the said Application in no manner constitute an Agreement to Sell and the Complainant, in no manner, become entitled to any provisional and/or final allotment of the Apartment. There has been clear understanding that only upon Complainant's signing and executing the 'Apartment Buyers Agreement', agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions laid down therein, that the allotment shall become final and binding upon the Company i.e. the Respondent. Admittedly, the Complainant has not signed and executed the Apartment Buyers Agreement and as such, it cannot be said that any final allotment has been made, that too which could be said to be binding upon the Company. In the absence of any final allotment and/or concluded contract between the parties, the issues sought to be raised by the Complainant much less the prayer, as made, are not only unsustainable in the eyes of law, but also fall out of the realm of the jurisdiction, which this Hon'ble Forum exercises.
4.. That from the perusal of the Complaint, especially the prayer clauses (i), (ii) and (iii), it is apparent that the Complainant is seeking to agitate issues and/or seek reliefs, which are illegal and unenforceable, more so in facts and circumstances of the case. The Complainant, who does not even said to have any right and/or concluded contract vis-a-vis the Apartment, in effect, is seeking directions from this Hon'ble Forum, against the Respondent, firstly to change the terms and conditions of the Apartment Buyers Agreement including the cost of the Apartment, to suit the Complainants convenience and thereafter to call upon the Respondent to execute the said Agreement with the Complainant. The Complainant, neither in law nor on facts, can agitate such issues and / or seek such reliefs that too under 1986 Act by misconceivingly invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum.
5. That the relief, as claimed by the Complainant, is in fact in the nature of injunction restraining the Respondent from asking the Complainant to pay requisite charges towards the cost of the Apartment, which the Complainant seeks to purchase. In humble submission, such nature of relief, which the Complainant has surreptitiously sought to seek, cannot be said to fall within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum and as such on this score also, the Complaint is not maintainable.
6. That without prejudice to the submission that the Complainant does not even to have any right and any concluded contract / agreement with the Company, it is humbly submitted that assuming, though not admitting that there exists an agreement between the parties, in that event as well, the reliefs as claimed by the Complainant can neither be sought for nor granted. It is well settled law that the Agreement by and between the owners / colonizers, the terms and conditions and covenant therein, are purely under private law domain and the same cannot be reviewed, evaluated, and/or interfered with, especially when the same had been voluntarily entered into by and between the owner/colonizer and the prospective purchaser of the flat/apartment. It has been further well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even the Director General, Town and Country Planning, who issues licence for development of a Colony under the provisions of Haryana Regulation and Development of Urban Areas Act, 1975, as has been done in the present case, is not authorized or empowered to review or evaluate the terms of the contract and resolve the disputes, if any, between the owners / colonizers and the purchasers of plots / flats. There is no provision under the Act and the Rules, whereby the licences provided, which empowers the Director to fix sale price of the plots or the cost of flats. In view of the settled law, the reliefs as sought to be claimed by the Complainant, cannot be said to be sustainable and would fall outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum. In humble submission, any order, which is ultra vires or outside jurisdiction, would be void in law i.e. deprived of its legal effect.
8. That the Complainant, along with 3 others, namely Sh. Ankur Manchanda, Smt. Geetika Sacdeva and Sh. Ashok Kapur, had desired to book 4 independent Units/ Apartments in the Complex. Respective Application Forms were filled up and submitted by the Complainants. One such Application Form, as filled up by the Complainant, in the above said Complaint is annexed hereto as Annexure R/1. The perusal of the said Application would show that the Complainant has clearly understood amongst other things, that besides Basic Sale Price, which was agreed to be Rs.3360 per sq. feet, there were other charges such like External Development Charges (EDC) and Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC). Further, it had been categorically understood that the total price does not include Interest Bearing Maintenance Security (IBMS), which were at the rate of Rs.100 per sq. feet of the super area, Preferential Local Charges (PLC), Club Membership, External Electrification Charges (EEC), Fire Fighting Charges (FFC), Power Backup Charges, Charges for Covered Parking Space(s). All the above mentioned charges were to be deposited by the Applicant to the Company in addition to the total price as mentioned in the Application Form. Besides the above charges, there were other fee/charges which were not included in the total price and even categories/nature of such charges/fee were mentioned in the Application Form. It may be mentioned here that in addition to above, it had also been mentioned in the Application Form that the total price does not include any other charges that may be payable by the applicant as per the Apartment Buyers Agreement on demand by the Company. Furthermore, the Application Form envisages that the Final Allotment could be made within a period of one year from the date of the application, during which period the Complainant would have an option to take refund of booking amount by serving a 30 days demand notice upon the Company. It is evident that the Complainant, being an Applicant, of the Application Form, solely executed by him, had clearly understood the terms and conditions mentioned in the Application Form. It had been clearly understood that besides Basic Sale Price, there were other charges, which were required to be paid including EDC, IDC, Club Membership Charges, Parking Facing PLC, Road/Corner facing PLC, EEC, FFC, Power Backup Charges and Covered Car Parking Charges. Having clearly understood and having made the booking of the Unit/Apartment on that basis, the Complainant cannot agitate and/or canvass that there is alleged deficiency in service in claiming such charges in the Apartment Buyers Agreement. This is without prejudice to the submission that in any event, seeking direction to refrain the respondent for asking such charges, is illegal and without jurisdiction. Further, it is a matter of record, as is even evident from the perusal of the Complaint that no deviation has been made from the understanding laid down in the Application Form, which inter alia, categorically provided that there would be charge:, in addition to the Basic Sale Price. It may further be mentioned here that it cannot be application form of the Application Form, as has been alleged. Since it has been categorically provided that the total price does not include such other charges, as mentioned in the Application Form and does not include even those charges that may be payable as per the Allotment Buyers Agreement on demand by the Company, the charges, as mentioned in the Apartment Buyers Agreement are legal and tenable. On that score also, neither it could be said nor it has been shown that there exists any deficiency in service.
9. That the Complainant has taken erroneous and misconceived pleas and even given wrong projection of facts. The Complainant, while raising challenge to the demand of Floor PLC and Corner facing PLC, has suggested that the same could be charged only if the Complainant had asked for a Floor PLC. In the humble submission of the Respondent, the said plea is misconceived and erroneous even to the knowledge of the Complainant. Floor PLC and Corner facing PLC are the charges attached to the Unit/Apartment and are charged according to the location of the Unit/Apartment, which is either Floors PLC or corner facing or even both. It is not for the Applicant to opt or not to opt for the same. If the flat, which is allotted, is designated to be a Floor PLC or corner facing or both, then corresponding charges are applicable on such flat/apartment.
At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that the complainant along with other family members have booked 4 flats in all with the opposite party being ECP No.821, 822 and 1044 and the Complainant's ECP no. being 259. Although there was no reason and/or occasion to give choice in relation to the 4 flats, which had been booked, yet keeping in view the fact that all the bookings and/or dealings were being made by Sh. Ashok Manchanda, the then Additional Forumer of Income Tax, on behalf of all the 4 Complainants, amble choices were given to choose the flat(s)/ Apartment (s), which could be made available at that point in time when all the 4 bookings had been made. After having booked 4 flats, Sh. Ashok Manchanda had desired that they be allotted adjoining flats on the same floor. However, at that point in time, it had been made clear that it was not possible to allot 4 adjoining flats. Although 4 adjoining flats could not be allotted, yet the Respondent, keeping in view the status and position of Sh. Ashok Manchanda, with which the Respondent was being confronted time and again, allotted adjoining flats against ECP No. 822 and 1044 being Unit No.A-1002 and A-1102 and that too on the 11th and 10th Floor in such a manner that flat of the Sh. Ashok Kapur is located exactly above the flat of the Ankur Manchanda. Further, the Complainant in the above captioned Complainant and Geetika, who was having ECP no. 821, were allotted flats on same floor. It is submitted that the opposite party has gone out of way to accommodate and accede to the request as far as possible, of Sh. Ashok Manchanda and/or the Complainants.
Accordingly, a provisional allotment letter was issued on April 13, 2012, whereby it had been informed that Apartment bearing Unit No.102 in Tower 'B' on 1st Floor tentatively having 1835 sq. feet (3 BHK) in 'Earth Copia', Sector 112, Gurgaon, has been allotted in accordance with the terms and conditions of booking Application Form. It was also mentioned that the Applicant shall abide by the terms and conditions of the proposed Apartment Buyers Agreement, to be signed by him. The said Allotment letter was required to be signed by the applicant. Evidently, the location of the flat allotted to the Complainant, is a Corner PLC and Floor, which fact has been to the knowledge of the Complainant. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Flat/Apartment located in Tower B of the Complex are Park facing, Road and Corner. Accordingly, Floor PLC and Corner facing PLC were applicable to the said Apartment, which charges were in addition to the Basic Sale Price, as has been mentioned in the Application Form. The same are accordingly payable by the Complainant. It is submitted it was only after the complainant indicated his preference and. choice for a particular flat that a flat bearing unit No. B-102 was allotted to the complainant at the time when the said flat was allotted to the complainant, he cannot said to be oblivious of the corresponding charges attached to the said flat, It is submitted that even after coming to know of the charges attached to flat in question the complainant never raise any objections or indicated for allotment of alternative flat. The said facts were also brought to the notice of the complainant by the opposite parties by the e-mail dated 18.12.2012 annexed as Annexure C-1 in the present complaint.
It may be mentioned here that demand for floor PLC and even corner facing PLC for such apartments, have been made from the respective prospective applicants and have even being paid by most of them. Copy of few such demand letters and the receipt acknowledging the demand there of are collectively annexed hereto as Annexure R/2. As such , the complainant, who cannot be said to be oblivious of the said fact that such charges are charged even from the similarly placed persons, cannot allege deficiency in service against him on account thereof. This is more so when he himself was aware that such charges would be charged from him in addition to the Basic Sale Price.
10. That the Complainant has further sought to raise a grouse in relation to the rates at which Floor PLC and Corner Facing PLC are being asked for, which in humble submission of the Respondent cannot be agitated. Besides the submission that the Complex/ Project being developed by the Respondent is a privately developed project and the transaction between the parities is purely a commercial transaction and the respondent is free to sell the apartment at a rate / cost at which it deem it appropriate, it is submitted that the complainant can not have grievances over the rate especially when he had been made aware of such rates at the time of booking. The entire complaint seems to be camouflage and an attempt to evade making all the requisite payments, failure of which entitles to respondent to forfeit the amount already paid by the complainant.
11. That the complainant for extraneous reasons and with a view to avoid paying installments due and payable to the opposite party , have started raising false and frivolous issues. All the 4 complaints are similar in nature and have been evidently filed in order to wriggle out from the obligation to pay the cost of the apartment at the price which had been volunteered by the complainant had started delaying its payment as and when they had fallen due. It appears that the complainant since could not make deposits of the requisite amounts, as and when they had fallen due, started raising alleged dispute , which has not basis at all. The respondent is annexing hereto as Annexure R/3 , a copy of the chart showing the dates when the requisite payments were to be made and the delay caused kin making such payment. Besides making delayed payments, the complainant has not even made entire payment, as was required to be made. On this score also the complaint is misconceived and no indulgence is liable to be shown to the complainant.
17. That further, the complainant in the present complaint has alleged that levy of various PLC/Charges were allegedly not mentioned in the application, though have been sought to be charged at the time of issuance of Allotment Letter and/ or Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. It is submitted that at the time of submission of the application form, it was clearly stipulated therein that the Total Price does not include any other charges that may be payable by the applicant(s) as per the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement/ Allotment letter on demand payable by the company. It is pertinent to mention that it was clearly stipulated in the application form that the price indicated in the Application form are subject to revision from time to time at the sole discretion of the company. Further it was clearly indicated conditions stated in the Application Form are moiety indicative with a view to acquaint the applicant and are not exhaustive It was further mentioned that that for detailed terms and conditions, the applicant should refer to the Final Application Form and Apartment Buyer's Agreement/Allotment letter, standard formal whereof was shown to the complainant at the time of booking and the complainant never raised any protest It is submitted that the Application Form was signed and executed by the applicant after reading all the terms and conditions stipulated therein and without any protest In that view of the manes 4 is not open to the applicant to wriggle out of the contractual obligations besides the terms and conditions of the Application Form.
21. That in the present complaint, the complainant has not been able to point deficiency in services offered by the Opposite Parties or defect in the goods offered by the opposite parties, As a matter of fact the same has not even pleaded by the Opposite Parties in their complaint which goes on to show that the present complaint has been filed merely to harass the opposite parties so as to extort a good bargain for the flat booked by the Complainant with the Opposite Party
20. The Ops have contested the complaints on merits and have reiterated the stand taken by way of preliminary objections as reproduced above. They have claimed that the complainants had not approached this forum with clean hands and the complaints are liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. They have prayed accordingly.
21. We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
22. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainants has drawn our attention to a public notice issued by the Department of Town and Country planning, Govt of Haryana, cautioning the public in general about some colonizers resorting to unfair trade practices in issuing advertisements inviting investment in their projects without having obtained the requisite license from the department in this regard. For the purpose of convenience, we reproduce the public notice which inter-alia reads as under:
'PUBLIC NOTICE FOR THE INFORMATION OF PERSONS INTENDING TO BUY PLOT/ FLAT IN PRIVATE LICENCED COLONIES OF HARYANA’
“The Department had earlier issued notices to caution both the general public as well as the persons/companies/property dealers engaged in development/booking/sale of plots/flats in the private licenced colonies of Haryana refraining them from sale/purchase/bookings in such projects for which licence has not been issued by the State Government. In this regard, a Public Notice had also been issued in several national dailies in the month of April 2011 informing the public that they should ascertain the complete details regarding licence granted to such colony before the purchase of plots/ flats/ office space/ shops etc.
2. It has, however, been noticed that some of the colonisers still issue advertisements inviting the gullible public to invest in a project even before the grant of licence to set up the colony resulting into misleading and defrauding the general public. While action against such unscrupulous elements is taken by the Department, the general public is hereby cautioned not to be allured by such advertisements and refrain from investing money in such projects for which licence has not been issued by the State Government.
3. In this regard, it is also informed that plots/flats for residential, commercial, institutional and industrial use etc. within the controlled areas and urbanise limit as declared under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 and Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 respectively; can be sold only after obtaining a license from the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana. The sale/pre-launch of plots without a license is illegal and there is no guarantee of any such project ever taking-off. In this regard the provision of Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulations of-Urban Areas Act, 1975, is also reproduced below for reference:
Section 7: Prohibition to advertise and transfer plots. No person including a property dealer
shall:-
(i) without obtaining a license under section 3, transfer or agree to transfer in any manner plots in a colony or make an advertisement or receive any amount in respect thereof;
(ii) erect or re-erect any building in any colony in respect of which a license under section 3, has not been granted.
(iii) erect or re-erect any building other than for the purpose of agriculture on the land sub-divided for agriculture as defined in clause (aa) of section 2 of this Act.
4. Some unscrupulous persons and companies may indulge in illegal activities of pre-launch of plots without obtaining a license for development of such colonies. Therefore, general public is advised to contact and verify whether license has been granted by the Director General, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana before booking of plots/ dwelling units/commercial property to avoid any legal problems and financial implications. Details of contact persons and their e-mail ids can be seen at Department's website: tcpharyana.gov.in”
23. Our attention has then been drawn to the terms and conditions accompanying the application for allotment of apartments in “Earth Copia“. Sector 12 Gurgaon (Haryana), Clause (3) of which reads as under:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FORMING A PART OF THIS APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF ANAPARTMENT IN "EARTH COPIA", SECTOR. ".12, GURGAON,(HARYANA).
1-2 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
3. The Company plans to develop the Land and construct the Group Housing Colony which shall inter-alia comprise of buildings containing residential apartments with suitable infrastructural facilities (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Towers") in accordance with License bearing number 35 of 2011 dated 25-04-2011 accorded by Director General, Town and Country Planning ("DGTCP") for the development of a Group Housing Colony and building plan approved by the DGTCP vide Memo No. ZP-720/JD (BS)/2011/20/08 on 29-12-2011.
24. It is contended that as per the above clause, OP had obtained the required license on 25-4-2011 and the approval of the plans on 29-11-2011. It has been pointed out that the bookings were done in at least two cases in January, 2011 which is clearly in violation of Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the rules made thereunder.
25. We are in agreement with the complainants and we are inclined to hold that the OP was guilty of an unfair trade practice. It ought not to have booked and accepted money towards the project in question without first obtaining the requisite license from the concerned authority.
26. The learned counsel for the complainant has then taken us through the application form Ex C/1 and in particular to the following clause:
in the event of the Company agreeing to provisionally allot the said Apartment, I/We agree to pay installments of Total Price (hereinafter defined) and all other dues as stipulated in this Application and as may be intimated by the Company from time to time and in the manner set out in the payment plan opted by me/us which shall form part of the agreement (Apartment Buyers Agreement/Allotment) Letter) that shall be executed by me/us and the Company on the Company's standard format.
27. It has been pointed out that after the bookings, it was incumbent on the OP to have provisionally allotted flats to the complainants before seeking any further payment as per the agreed payment plan. It has been further pointed out that the OP without making any allotment in favour of the complainants raised another demand equivalent to 15% of the BSP and threatened to cancel the allotment in case of non-payment. Letter dated Ex C3/45 (Poonam Manchanda V/s Earth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) was addressed by the OP in this regard and it inter-alia reads as under:-
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX
Please be kind enough and very kindly ensure, the outstanding amount of the first installment of fifteen percent, is paid immediately but in any case on or before 25th June 2011. Please ensure that by 25th June 11 you should have paid 25'0 of Basic Cost (10% of Booking Amount + 15% installment) of you flat.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX
You may also please ensure the payment is made within time to avoid cancellation of the booking. The cheque/ DD must be made favoring “Earth Infrastructure Limited “ payable at New Delhi.
28. Admittedly allotment letters were issued to the complainants in April 2012 i.e. after a period of about a year. A bare reading of the clause reproduced above in the application form makes it amply clear that the demand raised vide letter dated 9/6/2011 was illegal and unwarranted. The complainants were made to pay this installment of 15 % of the BSP under the pain of cancellation of booking which was in contradiction to the terms agreed to between the parties. The OP was, therefore, guilty of deficiency in service towards the complainant.
29. Not only this, it has been next pointed out that the Op had promised loan facility to the allottees after payment of 25 % of the BSP.In this regard, the OP had written letter dated 18-6-2011 which inter-alia reads:
This is to inform you that M/s Earth Infrastructure Ltd. will provide Loan facility to its clients of “Earth Copia” after the completion of 25% of payment, if required.
Sd/-
Authorised Signatory
30. The OP had initially disowned the above letter and had claimed it to be forged. However, during the course of arguments, the original of Ex. C3/46 was shown to the learned counsel for the OP who conceded that it had originated from OP’s office. The learned counsel for the complainants has taken us through the correspondence which the complainants had with the OP particularly with the offer of the loan facility. He has contended that no such facility was offered by the OP despite the promise and further that banks had refused to offer loan on the plea that the OP project was not credible. The complainants had further written to the OP that they be supplied with copies of documents such as the title of land, approved plans etc so that they may apply for the loan to their own bankers. It has been pointed out that despite writing so many letters ,the OP had failed to provide documents which would have facilitated the grant of loan to the complainants. This is alleged to be another case of deficiency on the part of the OP. We have gone through the letters written by the complainants to the OP. The complainants had informed the op that banks viz. i.e. Yes Bank, Deutsch Bank, Fbf Home Finance Etc had refused to entertain applications for grant of loan on the credibility issue of the project in question whereas complainants were not able to obtain loan from their own banker because of the failure of the OP to supply necessary documents.
31. On its part, no explanation has been furnished by the OP for its failure to provide loan facility as was promised vide letter dated 18-6-2011. The fact that OP did not help at all in this regard is evident because the OP had disowned the offer itself and had claimed the letter dated 18-6-2011 to be forged. But be that as it may, what was the reluctance to supply copies of documents to the complainants so that they may obtain loan from outside. No explanation is forthcoming from the OP in this behalf. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the OP backed out of its promise to provide its services so that loan facility is made available to the allottees. Above all, its failure to supply copies of documents of title, approved plans etc which it was bound to supply amounts to deficiency in service on its part.
32. Now we come to the additional charges sought to be levied on the complainants which have been disputed to by them. The Apartment- Buyers Agreement (ABA) which the complainants were asked to execute is dated 24.5.2012. Immediately on receipt of this document , the complainants had in their repeated letters called upon the OP to revisit the ABA and to delete some levies and to correct some of them in line with the terms mentioned in the application form EXC-1. The letters written by the complainants were initially not responded to and, later on, the OP took up a stand that the levies were in accordance with the ones agreed to between the parties and that there were no issues which were required to be resolved. In the process, the OP took a rigid stand and did not correct its mistakes which were so apparent. We now take up the issues of additional levies raised by the complainants.
33. Interest Bearing Maintenance Security
There is a dispute between the parties as regards the form of maintenance security which the complainants are bound to pay. As per the complainants it was agreed that the maintenance security shall bear interest which will be payable to them. This is disputed to by the OP who claims that the maintenance security is interest free. The complainants drew our attention to application Form Ex. C-1 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the maintenance security was interest bearing and not interest free. Asked to substantiate its claim to the contrary , the learned counsel for the OP stated that it was a typographical mistake as words “interest bearing” in the application form Ex. C/1 should have been typed out as “interest free” . He claimed that the error has been corrected in the ABA. Let us then examine the application form Ex. C/1 which has been carefully perused by us. There is a note on page 2 of this form which inter-alia reads :
(i) Total price does not include interest bearing maintenance security (IBMS) @ Rs 100/- per sq. ft. of the super area.XXX XXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
(ii) XXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
(iii) XXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
(iv) The total price does not include the maintenance charges / property tax, municipal tax , service tax , wealth tax, govt. rates, tax on land, compensation to the farmers (if any) , fees or levies of all or any kind but whatever name called. Interest bearing maintenance Security (IBMS) will be decided at the time of offer of possession. .
(v) XXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
(vi) XXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
34. On page 3 of the application form Ex. C-1 under the head “Price List of Earth Copia , Gurgaon” there is a stipulation that interest bearing maintenance security will be charged @ Rs 100/- per sq. ft. Again on the same page under the heads “ Down Payment Plan” and “Construction linked payment plan “ there is a stipulation that Interest Bearing Maintenance Security i.e. IBMS is payable at the time of offer of possession. There is another note at page 4 of the applicant form Ex. C-1 with the following stipulations:-
1-5. XXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
6. The yearly simple interest payable on IBMS shall be determined by the company as per the applicable rates on fixed deposits accepted by the State Bank of India at the close of each financial year on 31st March.
7-15. XXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
35. It is, therefore, clear that the application form Ex. C/1 clearly stipulates that maintenance security will earn interest in favour of the allottees. Not only this, the terms / conditions of the application form Ex. C-1 also provides the formula for determining the rate of interest to which the allottees will be entitled to on the maintenance security. The stand taken by the OP that the maintenance security was interest free is , therefore, indefensible. The unilateral change of this condition in the ABA was ,therefore, unjustified and untenable . It appears to us that the OP in a most brazen manner had refused to see reason and adopt the corrective measure despite being told several times to do so by the complainants..
36. Accordingly we hold that the maintenance security sought to be levied on the allottees was not interest free and would earn interest as provided for in the terms and conditions of the application form Ex. C-1.
37. Preferential Location Charges
Multiple Preferential location charges are sought to be levied on the complainants. Firstly, Floor Preferential location charges are sought to be levied in accordance with the location of the flats on the particular floor. Secondly, Road/ corner facing preferen tial charges are sought to be levied in accordance as the flat is facing a road or a corner. There is another additional charge sought to be levied under the head ‘Natural water facing PLC”. As per the complainants, these PLCs are optional and cannot be made applicable compulsorily . It is the case of the complainants that they had neither been asked nor had exercised any option for a particular floor flat and it was the OP who had allotted the flats on particular floors to them. It is contended that when no option as regards particular floor flat was exercised by the complainants , the levy on account of the floor location preferential charges is illegal and unwarranted.
38. The learned counsel for the OP on the other hand has taken refuge behind the terms and conditions of the application form Ex C-1 and has contended that it was specifically agreed to between the parties that this levy in respect of Floor Preferential Location Charges was applicable additionally. Attention has been drawn to Page 3 of the Application Form Ex. C-1 , which is reproduced as under:
FLOOR PREFERENTIAL LOCATION CHARGES
01st & 02nd Floor 175/- per sq. ft.
03rd & 04th Floor 150/- per sq. ft.
05th & 06th Floor 125/- per sq. ft.
07th & 08 th Floor 100/- per sq. ft.
09th & 10th Floor 75/- per sq. ft.
11th to 15th Floor 50/- per sq. ft.
16th & 17th Floor 75/- per sq. ft.
18th & 19th Floor 100/- per sq. ft
39. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The question for our consideration is as to whether this levy can be imposed on the allottees and has been agreed to as such or is optional. Normally speaking the cost of the flat includes the Basic Sale Price , the external Development Charges and the Infrastructure Development Charges. All other charges are in the form of facilities to be provided by the builder which are generally optional in nature. To determine the question posed before us , we have to consider the meaning of word “Preference or Preferential. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word “Preference “ is :-
1. Choice of
2. Liking for
3. One thing rather than another
The “Oxford” Dictionary gives the meaning of word “preference “ as :
1. A great liking for one alternative over another and others.
2. A thing preferred
3. Favor shown to one person or thing over another and others.
The “Oxford” Dictionary gives the following meaning to the word “ Preferential”
1. Of or involving preference or partiality; constituting a favour or privilege.
40. Keeping in view the meaning given to the word “preference or preferential “ as reproduced above , it is clear that it involves a liking or a choice or a favour shown to one against others. In other words , it will involve the option of the person (in this case the allottee) to have a thing of his own choice or of his own linking e.g. if an allottee insists that he wants to have a flat on a particular floor only , the OP may impose an additional charge for the same. In the case in hand , however, the allotment of the flats did not involve any option of the allottees The allotment letter received by the complainants make it amply clear that the allotment was made by the OP without the allottees having any choice or option in the same. Strangely enough floor location preferential charges are sought to be levied on all the flats across the board even though at different rates. In our considered opinion these charges cannot be levied across the board and can be levied selectively and only on exercise of an option by the allottees.
41. For the same reasons, we are inclined to hold that the corner / road facing PLC and the Natural Water Facing PLC are optional in nature as they do not involve any choice of the allottee to seek a preferred location. The learned counsel for the complainants has also brought to our knowledge that the flats on which this levy is sought to be imposed are constructed in a manner that they are either corner flats or are road facing. There is no case of a preferred Location viz. a viz. the others.
42. We have one more reason to come to the above conclusion. A bare perusal of the application form Ex. C-1 nowhere states that the Preferential Location Charges are compulsory. Any person booking a flat with the OP on a reading of the application Form Ex. C-1 may assume that this is an optional levy.
43. In a number of cases, Courts have held that if there is any ambiguity with regard to the clauses in a contract and where two interpretations are reasonably possible, one which favours the consumer has to be accepted. In case of ambiguity or doubt in terms of the contract it should be interpreted in favour of the consumer and against the company. In the case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan, 1(1987) ACC 413 (SC) (1987) 2 SCC 654, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“…. When the option is between opting for a view which will relieve the distress and misery of the victims of accidents or their dependants on the one hand and the equally plausible view which will reduce the profitability of the insurer in regard to the occupational hazard undertaken by him by way of business activity, there is hardly any choice. The Court cannot but opt for the former view. Even if one were to make a strictly doctrinaire approach, the very same conclusion would emerge in obeisance to the doctrine of ‘reading down’ the exclusion clause in the light of the ‘main purpose’ of the provision so that the ‘exclusion clause’ does not cross swords with the main purpose’ highlighted earlier. The effort must be to harmonize the two instead of allowing the exclusion clause to snipe successfully at the main purpose”.
44. In view of the discussion above, we are inclined to hold that the Preferential Location Charges sought to be levied on the complainants are illegal and unwarranted. The OP is directed to amend the” ABA” after deleting the aforesaid three PLCs.
45. CLUB MEMBERSHIP
The applicant form EX C-1 stipulates that Club Membership will cost a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the allottees. The question again which arises for our consideration is as to whether the Club Membership is compulsory or optional. It is contended on behalf of the OP that a Club is being created inside the residential premises for the benefit of the residents and the membership is compulsory. The learned counsel for the complainants has , however strongly contended that these charges cannot be imposed upon the complainants. He has contended that an allottee may or may not choose to be a member of the club and the membership cannot be thrust upon him. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the OP in a clandestine manner is trying to recover the cost of the building where the club will be housed and is intending to charge separate fee for membership. Our attention has been invited to Para 45 of the affidavit filed by Sh. Gulshan Aggarwal, the Authorised Representative of the OP in this regard which reads as under:
45. That deponent state that the Club Charges are being recovered from the complainant as proportionate cost of building infrastructure, building etc. for the club. Whereas, Member ship fee , refundable club security deposit is payable by the complainant on account of maintenance , upkeep, personnel deployed and other day to day expenses. The complainant is trying to mix both the charges so as to confuse this Hon’ble Forum. These charges are levied on account of facilities and other amenities provided to the complainants of the complex. Further, these charges will not be paid to the opposite party but to the maintenaince agency who shall execute a separate agreement with the complainant. That as regards security deposit is concerned; the same is refundable security deposit. It is submitted by raising the alleged issues, the complainant has lost sight of the fact that the club is built for exclusive use of the inhabitants of the complex where no outsiders are permitted and therefore , the same shall entail some cost to the applicant. At the time of submission of the Application Form it was clearly stipulated thereto that the Total Price does not include any other charges that may be payable by the applicant (s) as per the Apartment Buyers Agreement / Allotment letter on demand payable by the company . It was further mentioned that for detailed terms and conditions, the applicant should refer to the Final Application Form and Apartment Buyers Agreement/ Allotment letter, standard format whereof was shown to the complainant at the time of booking and the complainant never raised any protest.
46. A perusal of the aforesaid Para in the affidavit filed on behalf of the OP shows that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is being charged from the complainants on account of the proportionate cost of the building / infrastructure housing the club. It further shows that the Op is intending to charge membership fee and refundable club security deposit extra. In our opinion , the stand taken by OP is not sustainable and has to be struck down. The OP cannot charge the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as proportionate cost of the building infrastructure.. The applicant form Ex. C-1 describes this charge as Club Membership meaning thereby that it is a onetime fee for becoming a member of the club which the OP is setting up in the complex. The OP is trying to convert this charge into the proportionate cost for the building where the club will be housed. This is unwarranted and cannot be allowed. We , therefore, hold that the complainants can not be made to pay club membership at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per allottee.
47. We may also clarify that membership of a club is always optional and cannot be thrust upon the residents. The OP , therefore, cannot force the residents to become members of the Club and to pay Membership Fee and other Charges for the running and upkeep of the club. The OP is directed to revisit the ABA and to delete the aforesaid charges in accordance with our directions.
48. Covered Car Parking Charges
The OP is trying to charge a sum of Rs 3,00,000/- on account of covered car parking charges. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the law mandates that the builder will provide a covered car parking under the stilt for which no extra charge can be levied. He has contended that this has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nahal Chand Laloo Chand Pvt Ltd V/s Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2544 of 2010) . The learned counsel for the OP has also relied upon this judgment and has contended that the builder has a right to charge extra for the stilt parking space. We have gone through this judgment which was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with reference to the provisions contained in Maharashtra Ownership Flats ( Regulation of the promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and transfer. ) Act 1963 and Maharashtra Ownership Flats ( Regulation of the promotion of construction, etc .) Rules 1964. The Hon’ble Court has observed as under:-
We have, however, held in our discussion above that open to the Sky Parking Area or Stilted Portion usable as Parking Space is not garage within the meaning of Section 2 (a-1) and, therefore, not salable independently as a flat or along with a flat. As a matter of fact, in so far as the promoter is concerned, he is not put to any prejudice financially by treating open parking space / stilt parking space as part of common areas. Since he is entitled to charge price for the common areas and the facilities from each flat purchaser in proportion to the Carpet Area of the Flat. MOFA mandates the promoter to describe common areas and facilities in the advertisements as well as the agreement with the flat purchaser and the promoter is also required to indicate the price of the flat including the proportionate price of the common areas as facilities. If a promoter does not fully disclose the common areas and facilities he does so at his own peril. Stilt parking spaces would not cease to be part of common areas and facilities merely because the promoter has not described the same as such in the advertisement and agreement with the flat purchaser.
The court further observed that ;
As a necessary corollary to the answers given by us to the Question Nos (i) to (iii), it must be held that stilt parking space being part of common areas of the building developed by the promoter the only right the promoter has , is to charge the cost thereof in proportion to the carpet area of the flat from each flat purchaser. Such stilt parking space being neither flat under section 2 (a-1) nor garage within the meaning of that provision is not saleable at all.
49. As already stated the aforesaid judgment was given by the Hon’ble Court, keeping in view the particular provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 and the rules made there under. In the cases in hand as well it appears to us that the Stilt area is a part of the Common Areas and the OP cannot charge the allottees extra for the same. We, therefore, direct the OP to revisit the ABA and delete the extra charge on account of covered car parking charges.
50. External Electrification Charges and Fire Fighting Charges
The application form Ex. C-1 stipulates that External Electrification Charges and Fire Fighting Charges will be charged @ Rs 100/- per Sq.ft. The learned counsel for the complainants has pointed out that in the ABA this charge has been shown only for External Electrification Charges . He has contended that the complainants apprehend that later on the OP might fix an additional charge on account of Fire Fighting . The learned counsel for the OP has fairly conceded that the two charges i.e. External Electrification Charges and Fire Fighting have to be charged @ Rs. 100/- Sq. Ft. and the ABA needs to be corrected accordingly. We, therefore, direct the OP to amend the ABA and incorporate that the charges for External Electrification and Fire Fighting will be @ Rs 100/- per sq. ft. and no extra charge will be levied on account of fire fighting.
51. Power Backup Charges
The Application form Ex C-1 stipulates that power back up charges will be @ Rs 20000/- per KVA. It also stipulates that each apartment would be provided with a minimal power backup of 5 KVA. On behalf of the complainants, it is contended that the charge is on a higher side. It is also contended that the allottees may not be forced to have a minimum power backup of 5 KVA. We, however, are not able to agree with the contention of the complainants in this regard as it was specifically agreed to in the terms and conditions that a minimum power backup of 5 KVA will be provided to each apartment @ Rs 20,000/- per KVA. The complainants having agreed to these terms cannot now back out from the same.
52. Electric Connection Charges
A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is sought to be charged by the OP on account of electricity connection charges. This was not mentioned in the Application Form Ex. C-1 or in the price list attached to the same. The OP is already charging a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as external electrification charges and fire fighting charges. The OP is also charging for external development as well as infrastructure internal development in the complex. Therefore, this charge which is not listed in the application form Ex. C-1 is unwarranted and untenable. We, therefore, direct the OP to revisit the ABA and delete the extra charge on account of Electric Connection Charges.
53. External Development Charges and Infrastructure Development Charges.
It is claimed by the complainants that these charges are also on a higher side. However, since the claimants are already agreed to the payment of these charges at the rates quoted by the OP, we hold that the complainants are liable to pay at the agreed rate.
54. It has been contended on behalf of the complainants that they have asked the OP a number of times to provide them with the details of the common areas which have been included in order to form the super area of the flats on which the OP had computed the basic sale price of the allotted flats. OP was obliged to give the details to the complainants and satisfy them that they have been charged for the correct super area and no extra charge has been levied on them. No such details have been filed on record. The common areas included in the super area must be clearly specified to rule out any confusion in future. We , therefore, direct the OP that before insisting on the execution of the ABA , they would inform the complainants the details of the carpet area as well as the common areas for which they have been charged.
55. Our attention has also been drawn to clause 1.19 of the ABA which the complainants have been asked to execute. The clause reads as under;-
1.19 i)XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
ii) The Allottee understands that the Allottee has not made any payment to the Company in any manner whatsoever with respect to any lands, buildings, common areas, facilities and amenities falling outside the Foot Print of the Said Building save and except the use of general common areas (for the purpose of direct exit to a nearest public street, nearest road only) to be identified by the Company in its sole discretion and the Allottee hereby agrees that the Company has not indicated/ promised/represented/given any impression of any kind in an explicit or implicit manner whatsoever, that the Allottee shall have any right, title or interest of any kind whatsoever therein. The Allottee further agrees that any such identification with respect to general common areas by the Company in its plans now or in future shall be final, conclusive and binding on the Allottee. Further the Company has made clear to the Allottee that it (the Company or any of its affiliates, group companies) shall be carrying out extensive developmental / construction activities now and for many accedes in suture in the entire area falling outside the Foot Print of the Said Building and that the Allottee shall not have a right to raise any objection or make any claims or not to make payments In time as stipulated In schedule of payments in Annexure C on account of inconvenience, if any, which may alleged to have been caused to the Allottee due to such developmental/construction activities or activities incidental/related to it. It is made clear by the Company and agreed by the Allottee that all rights including the rights of ownership of land(s), facilities and amenities (other than those within the Said Building and the Foot Print thereof) shall vest solely with the Company, its associate companies, its subsidiary companies who shall alone have the sole and absolute authority to deal in any manner with such land(s), facilities and amenities. This clause shall survive throughout the ownership of the Said Apartment by the Allottee, his / her legal representatives, successors, administrators, executors, assigns etc,
56. A bare perusal of the above clause makes it amply clear that the OP has reserved to itself the rights to develop all areas except the tower and the road leading outside meaning thereby that on a later date, the OP has the right to make constructions on the parks and the other common areas/vacant spaces established by it in this project . In other words, the op has reserved a right to develop the open spaces and convert it into concrete jungle and sacrifice aesthetics. This is unfair and cannot be allowed. A person intending to buy a residential flat apart from considering the cost of the same also takes into consideration the aesthetics available there. These cannot be allowed to be altered without the consent of the residents. The OP is, therefore, directed to revisit the clause and bring it in conformity with the agreed terms.
57. We have already noted during our discussion that the complaints had raised issues of additional levies with the OP immediately after the receipt of the ABA. They had brought to the notice of the OP the inconsistencies in the ABA viz a viz the terms and condition of the application form Ex C-1. We have found that the issues raised by the complainants were genuine and not imaginary. We have directed the OP to revisit the ABA and to rectify the terms incorporated therein. Since the OP had refused to listen and rectify its mistakes. The complainants were, therefore, justified in refusing to make any further payments towards the cost of the flats till their grievances had been removed.
58. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are constrained to hold that the OP was not only guilty of deficiency in service, it had also resorted to an unfair trade practice. We, therefore, direct the OP as under:
In Complaint Case No. 53/15 Poonam Manchanda V/s Earth Infrastructure
1. To revisit the ABA and bring it in conformity with our observations made above . The OP shall supply the new ABA to the complainant and will give her 10 days time to raise objections if any. The OP shall respond to the objections if any raised by the complainant within a period of 15 days of its receipt.
2. Not to charge any interest on the complainant for the delay in payment of the due installments as per the payment plan.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by her.
In Complaint Case No. 52/15 Ashok Kapur V/s Earth Infrastructure
1. To revisit the ABA and bring it in conformity with our observations made above . The OP shall supply the new ABA to the complainant and will give him 10 days time to raise objections if any. The OP shall respond to the objections if any raised by the complainant within a period of 15 days of its receipt.
2. Not to charge any interest on the complainant for the delay in payment of the due installments as per the payment plan.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by him.
In Complaint Case No. 51/15 Geetika Sachdeva & Anr. V/s Earth Infrastructure
1. To revisit the ABA and bring it in conformity with our observations made above . The OP shall supply the new ABA to the complainants and will give them 10 days time to raise objections if any. The OP shall respond to the objections if any raised by the complainants within a period of 15 days of its receipt.
2. Not to charge any interest on the complainants for the delay in payment of the due installments as per the payment plan.
3. Pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by them.
In Complaint Case No. 50/15 Ankur Manchanda & Anr. V/s Earth Infrastructure
1. To revisit the ABA and bring it in conformity with our observations made above . The OP shall supply the new ABA to the complainants and will give them 10 days time to raise objections if any. The OP shall respond to the objections if any raised by the complainants within a period of 15 days of its receipt.
2. Not to charge any interest on the complainants for the delay in payment of the due installments as per the payment plan.
3. Pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by them.
59. We further direct the OP to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs Ten Lakhs) with the Consumer Welfare Fund maintained with the State Commission Delhi for resorting to unfair trade practice.
60. The OP shall comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. If the OP company fails to comply with this order, the complainants may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
61. The original order shall be kept in file no. 53 /2015 Poonam Manchanda V/s Earth Infrastructure and copies shall be kept in complaint nos 52/2015, 51/2015 and 50/2015.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rules.
Files be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on..................... | |