Haryana

Sonipat

152/2014

Ram Kanwar Kadyan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eldeco infrastructures & Properties ltd,2. Eldeco Infrastructure & Pro. Ltd. Sonepat - Opp.Party(s)

Anup Singh Dahiya

08 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.152 of 2014

                                Instituted on:03.06.2014

                                Date of order:11.12.2015

 

Ram Kanwar Kadyan r/o H.No.1160, Sector 1, Rohtak at present H.No.3524, Sector 15, Sonepat.

…Complainant.  

Versus

 

1.Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd. 201-2012,2^nd floor, plot no.3, Splendor Forum, Jasola, Distt. Centre, New Delhi through its Director.

2.Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd. NH-1, Sector 19, Nagal Khurd, GT road, Sonepat through its Director, Manager.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. AS Dahiya Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. SC Jain, Adv. for respondents. 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he has purchased one residential independent floor no.2078GF in Eldeco County, Sonepat in upcoming project at Sector 19 Sonepat and the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.25,51,244/- and service tax of Rs.56197/- on basic cost till date.  But till date the respondents have not provided any facilities to the complainant. Rather they assured the complainant that the possession of the floor will be handed over within two years i.e. upto 2/2012 but till date they have not offered any possession to the complainant.  Now the respondents have sent a letter dated 15.1.2014 directing the complainant to pay the amount and interest on delayed payment of basic price, interest on delayed payment, EDC/IDC, club membership fee, service tax of club membership and directed to pay an amount of Rs.86271/- and several other costs like attractions, water connection, sewer connections and cost of laying electricity cable total Rs.1,41,656/- final total amount of Rs.2,27,927/- from the complainant. The complainant has alleged the above said letter and demand of the complainant to be wrong and illegal.  It is further submitted that the respondents have further demanded registration charges of Rs.15000/-, incidental expenditure of Rs.19500/- and service tax of Rs.2411/- total amounting to Rs.36911/-.  The complainant has also alleged the said demand of the respondents to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the basic price of the property in dispute is Rs.24,69,050/-.  The respondents vide its final demand notice/offer of possession dated 15.1.2014 have asked the complainant to take possession of the said unit after making payment of charges i.e. EDC/IDC, maintenance charges and reimbursement amount, demanded in terms of the said agreement within 30 days. The complainant was also advised to pay stamp duty and registration fee and to get the sale deed registered in respect of the said unit.  The final demand notice shows that an amount of Rs.3,54,820/- (alongwith an amount of Rs.36911/-) was due and payable by the complainant on account of cost of said unit, misc. charges, maintenance charges, reimbursement amount, registration and incidental charges.  The respondents have already provided all the payment receipts alongwith account statement to the complainant at his request.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents since the respondents as a gesture of goodwill have charged only Rs.54311/- against the total interest of Rs.72414/- accrued against the said unit. The demand raised by the respondents from the complainant is in accordance with the terms of the said agreement executed in between the parties and the same are binding on the rights of the complainant. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the demand of the respondents raised vide letter dated 15.1.2014 is wrong and illegal.  Further the demand of the respondents regarding incidental expenditure of Rs.19500/- and Rs. 2411/- as service tax is wrong, illegal and not justified.  Even after paying the huge amount by the complainant to the respondents, the respondents have failed to hand over the possession of the said flat unit no.2078GF Eldeco County Sonepat in upcoming project at Sector 19 Sonepat to the complainant.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents submit that the final demand notice shows that an amount of Rs.3,54,820/- (alongwith an amount of Rs.36911/-) was due and payable by the complainant on account of cost of said unit, misc. charges, maintenance charges, reimbursement amount, registration and incidental charges.  The respondents have already provided all the payment receipts alongwith account statement to the complainant at his request.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents since the respondents as a gesture of goodwill have charged only Rs.54311/- against the total interest of Rs.72414/- accrued against the said unit. The demand raised by the respondents from the complainant is in accordance with the terms of the said agreement executed in between the parties and the same are binding on the rights of the complainant. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation

          We have perused the letter dated 15.1.2014 (Annexure C3) very carefully.  The perusal of this letter shows that the respondents have demanded Rs.3,54,820/- from the complainant under various head.

          But in our view, against the serial no.II (Miscellaneous charges), the complainant is not liable to pay Rs.54311/-, Rs.3870/-, Rs.25000/- and Rs.3090 i.e. total Rs.86271/- as this amount has already been charged by the respondents from the complainant as is admitted by the respondents in their reply in para no.9 of the preliminary objections.  We have perused the document C4 i.e. letter dated 3.11.2012 written by the respondent Eldeco to the complainant.  Vide this letter, the respondent company has mentioned that “We would further like to inform you that the club membership rates have now been revised to Rs.50,000/-.  However  as a gesture of goodwill, the club membership is being offered at the old rate of Rs.25000/- if you opt to pay the membership by November 30, 2012 (service tax extra).  Whereas prior to this letter, the complainant moved the application dated 29.11.2012 vide which they issued cheque no.941391 dated 29.11.2012 for Rs.28090/- to the respondent.  But the respondent inadvertently for the reasons best known to them, issued the receipt no.43508 book no.436 dated 1.12.2012.  So, it proves that the intention of the complainant was fair and honest.

          Against serial no.III(Maintenance Charges), the complainant is not liable to pay any amount qua the demand of the respondents to the tune of Rs.31107/-.  Similarly the complainant is not liable to pay Rs.15000/- against cost of laying electricity cable, Rs.20,000/- against cost of rain water harvesting system,  Rs.8550/- against cost of relaying of adjoining road surface once, Rs.10,000/-  as prepaid power back up metering system and Rs.5000/- as bank charges/administrative charges.  The perusal of the column IV (Reimbursement) shows that the respondent has already demanded Rs.45000/- from the complainant, then what for they are demanding Rs.10000/- from the complainant under the head of prepaid power back up metering system.  As far as the other amount as mentioned above is concerned, the respondents have no right to charge the same because the respondents have received the EDC amount from the complainant and it is the duty of the respondents to provide the other facilities to the complainant.

          Now coming to the dispute in between the complainant and the respondents regarding stamp duty.

          As per letter dated 15.1.2014, the respondents have demanded Rs.36911/- i.e. Rs.15000/-  as registration charges, Rs.19500/- as incidental expenditure and Rs.2411/- as service tax.

In our view, the respondent has no right to demand only Rs.19500/- and Rs.2411/- from the complainant. However, it is made clear that the expenses of stamp duty, execution and registration charges of the conveyance deed and writing charges of conveyance deed shall be borne by the complainant.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 11.12.2015