Haryana

StateCommission

CC/60/2017

OM PARKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

INTIME PROMOTERS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GOEL

10 Jun 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Consumer Complaint  No.60 of  2017

Date of the Institution:06.02.2017

Date of Decision:    10.06.2022

 

Om Parkash S/o Karam Chand R/o H.No.144, Sector-17, Panchkula (Haryana).

                                                                    .….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Intime Promoters Private Ltd., registered office  at 9, Kasturba Gandhi,New Delhi 110001 tyhrough its Managing Director, Partner/Authorized Signatory.
2. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., 9, Kasturba Gandhi, New Delhi 110001 through its Managing Director, partner/Authorized Signatory.
3. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd, TDI City , TDI  Mall, Kundli through its Managing Director, partner/Authorized signatory.
4. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd, Lake Groove, Sector Road, Kundli through its Managing Director, Partner/Authorized Signatory.

                                                          .….Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Munish Goel, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr.Akash Mehta proxy counsel for Mr.Puneet Tulli, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that complainant has purchased a plot of 500 sq yds @ Rs.7750/- per sq. yd and EDC @ 790 per sq yd. in TDI City Kundli, Sonepat. The total price of the plot comes to Rs.42,70,000/- including all charges.  He paid Rs.7,75,000/- vide dated 21.11.2015  through draft to the opposite parties.  OPs offered allotment letter dated 04.01.2006 to him. OPs further demanded Rs.3,87,500/- and Rs.98,750/- from him, which were deposited on 27.02.2006. OPs issued letter dated 21.01.2006 vide which OPs mentioned that complainant had been allotted plot in Block L-577.  The complainant applied for bank loan.   He requested the OPs to provide some documents like allotment letter/conveyance deed of the plot and layout plan of the plot for getting the loan amount, but, OPs failed to provide requisite documents and as such he did not get loan from any bank.  He further told opposite parties  that they should revise the schedule of payment as there was no development for the L block and he would not pay any interest on the delayed payment on account of communication from their side.  OPs wrongly issued letter dated 19.04.2007 intimating him to make payment of Rs.30,25,886/- within 7 days failing which plot stands cancelled. Thereafter, on 13.06.2008, he deposited Rs.8,00,000/-, Rs.13,21,251/- and Rs.13,00,000/- with the opposite parties.  He had made payment of Rs.46,82,501/- till date including interest on account of late payment.  He requested the OPs to give physical possession of plot, but, nothing has been done by OPs.    He went to OPs at Sonepat at site where these plots are situated on 26.10.2014.  He found that there was no development at all.  The area was not developed. There was no provision of water, electricity and sanitation. The roads were not constructed. Thus there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

2.       Notice being issued. OP filed written statement of defence.  It was alleged in preliminary objections about  accruing cause of action, complainant not consumer, abuse of the process of law etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      On merits,  it was alleged that it was complainant who approached the ops seeking allotment of plot measuring 500 sq.yrds and accordingly submitted application form alongwith requisite amount.  No information qua the amenities etc. was ever provided to him.  The formal agreement was sent to him but the same has not been received executed on the part of the complainant till date. It was admitted that complainant booked 500 sq. yds plot @ 7750/- per sq. yd. It was denied the cost of plot tobe Rs.42,70,000/-.  No letters dated 02.06.2006 and 13.07.2006 were ever received by the OPs. The complainant defaulted in payment of installments and thus OPs were left with only option and the unit in question was cancelled and complainant was duly informed vide letter dated 01.011.2007.  OPs received Rs.13,21,251/- and Rs.13,00,000/- through cheques. However Rs.8,00,000/- was not received. The complainant’s averment that Rs.8,00,000/- in cash was adjusted towards interest on account of delayed payments was wrong and was denied. The complainant has paid Rs.38,82,501/- till date and no interest on delayed payments has been received.  The complainant again defaulted in making payments. Thus there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

4.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainant,  Om Parkash in his evidence has tendered the affidavit Ex.CA vide which he reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-23 and closed his evidence.

5.                On the contrary, the OPs has tendered the affidavit of Mr. O.P.Gupta as Ex. RA alongwith documents Ex. R-1 to Ex.R-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Munish Goel, learned counsel for the complainants as well as Mr.Akash Mehta proxy counsel for Mr.Puneet Tuli, learned counsel for the opposite parties.  With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

7.                As per the basic averments raised in the complaint and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he had already deposited, alongwith the interest? 

8.                While unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Munish Goel, learned counsel for the complainants that as far as purchaser of the plot is concerned it is not in dispute.  It is also not in dispute that complainants purchased a plot of 500 sq yds @ 7750/- per sq yds to the OPs.   Despite several emails and requests made by complainants, neither the possession was delivered nor the refund of deposited amount was received by complainants.  The complainant had made payment of Rs.46,82,501/- till date including interest on account of late payment. The complainant went to OPs number of times and asked about physical possession of plot, but till date nothing has been done by OPs.  In these circumstances the complainant had no other option, but, to seek the refund of the amount alongwith interest, which he had already paid, and has approached this Commission. 

9.                On the contrary, the counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that complainant has not paid the installments in time.  OPs further argued that the cost of the plot was not Rs.42,70,000/-.  Counsel further argued that complainant has not deposited Rs.8,00,000/- cash till date with the OPs.    The complainant was defaulter and he did not deposit the balance payments despite reminders and cancellation notice.  Counsel further argued that complainant has not deposited Rs.8,00,000/- cash till date with the OPs.  The complainant has only paid Rs.38,83,501/- till date and no interest on delayed payments has been received.  Counsel further argued that the complainant has not deposited the balance amount of Rs.10,05,532/-.  On 22.09.2017 (R-8), the completion certificate was granted by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana. On 06.06.2018 (R-7) the OPs issued letter to the complainant for offer of taking over an alternative ready for possession unit in the same project and registration of a sale deed within 15 days of completion of all formalities.  Thus, the complainant is not entitled for the refund.

10.              In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that plot of 500 sq. yards was purchased by the complainant.  As per Ex. C-15 dated 13.06.2008, the OPs received Rs. Eight lacs cash from Mr. Om Prakash. Since the OPs have received Rs.8,00,000/- cash from Om Parkash and  have signed the receipt in token thereof so how can they dispute this fact now at this stage.  Identically,  Ex.C-16 dated 13.06.2018, the OPs received Rs.13,21,251/-  and also Rs.13,00,000/- from Om Prakash.  If document Ex. C-15 was alleged to be forged or managed by the complainant then why OPs did not lodge the FIR against him. We do not believe that builder has not accepted the amount of Rs.Eight lacs against the receipts  Ex. C-15 and C-16 of TDI infrastructure Ltd. are the same in character, especially when OPs do not dispute the Ex.C-16 at all.

11.    The OPs are relying upon  letter dated 22.09.2017 treating it to be completion certificate and occupation certificate to have been issued by the concerned authority i.e. DTCP.  Perusal of the said letter shows that vide said letter the DTCP has granted occupation certificate subject to following conditions detailed below:-

“1.     The services will be laid by the colonizer upto alignment of proposed external services of the town and connection with the HUDA system will be done by the society at his own cost with the prior approval of the competent authority. In case pumping is required, the same will be done by the society at its own cost. The services will be provided as per provision in the EDC of Sonipat.

2.      That the society will be solely responsible for making arrangement of water supply and disposal of sewage and storm water of their colony as per requirement/guidelines of HSPCB/Environment Department till such time, the external services are provided by HUDA/State Government as per their scheme.

3.      Level/Extent of the services to be provided by HUDA i.e. water supply sewerage, SWD, roads etc. will be proportionate of EDC provisions.

4.      That the roof top rain harvesting system shall be maintained by the society properly and kept operational all the time to come.

5.      That in case of some additional structures are required to be constructed and decided by HUDA at a later stage, the same will be binding upon you. Flow control valves will be installed, preferably of automatic type on water supply connection with HUDA water supply line.

6.      That the NSL formation level of roads have been verified and are correct. You shall be responsible in case of any mistake in levels etc.

7.      That you shall be fully responsible for operation, upkeep and maintenance of all roads, open spaces, public parks and public health services like water supply, sewerage and drainage etc. for a period as approved in the service plan estimates of your colony from the date of issuance of final completion certificate or earlier relieved of said responsibility and thereupon transfer all such roads open spaces, public parks and public health services like water supply, sewerage and drainage etc. free of cost to the Government or the Local Authority as directed.

8.      That you shall neither erect nor allow the erection of any communication and Transmission Tower with in colony without prior approval of competent authority.

9.      That you shall use LED fittings for street lighting in the licenced colony.

10.    That you shall comply with the conditions of service plan/estimates approved by the Department vide memo dated 15.03.2017 and the conditions imposed by CA-HUDA, Panchkula in the letter annexed as Annexure A-1.

11.    That you shall be required to obtain final completion certificate after  laying out the colony as preapproved layout plan and completion of internal development works as per approved specifications and design as required under section 3 (6) of the Haryana Development and Regulation or Urban Area Act, 1975.

12.    That you shall get the licence renewed as laid down under rule 13 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Rules, 1976 till the grant of final completion certificate.

13.    That you shall complete the construction of community buildings as per provisions of Section 3 (3) (a) (iv) of Act No.8 of 1975.

14.    That you shall abide by all prevailing norms/rules and regulations as fixed by HUDA.

15.    This part completion certificate shall be void ab-initio, if any of the conditions mentioned above are not complied with.”

Without compliance of these conditions it cannot have been treated as completion certificate for all intents and purposes nor this can be treated and used by the OPs as occupation certificate free from conditions.  OPs has not placed on the file any evidence showing compliance of these conditions  and in specific about  connection  of water, electricity,  sewerage and storm water that appears to be the reason as to why the offer of possession was being issued to different persons at different times. More particularly, whether the conditions imposed by the competent authorities while granting  completion certificate, a conditions included the provisions of electricity, such as water supply, sewerage, drainage, rain harvesting system, LED in the building, street lighting, storm water and environmental clearance, which were certainly basic necessities for residence.  This was certainly an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs by giving offer of possession for incomplete building and charging interest charges from the complainants. 

12.    To the utter surprise of this Commission and is very pity that inspite of the fact that period of more than 16 years had expired, the possession of the plot has not been delivered by O.Ps.  As such, there is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the oral agreement.   It is the normal trend of the developers/O.Ps. that  developer would collect their hard earned money  from  the  individuals and would invest the funds in other projects as a result thereof the project  for which the investors have invested their hard earned money is not completed.  Resultantly,  the delivery of possession or completion of the project is delayed as in the present case.  When the project is not complete as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service of opposite parties  and thus, complainant is well within his legal rights to get the interest on the deposited amount. Even otherwise also there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount and still deprived of not being put into possession of the same and under these constrained circumstances, he had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund and interest on the deposited amount.  In such like cases  the Commission had to deal with the developers/O.Ps. with severe hands who are misusing the funds of the individuals.  As such the question is answered in the affirmative.

13.    In the light of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and have indulged in unfair trade practice.  Hence, the present complaint of the complainant deserves to succeed against the opposite parties.  Accordingly, the complaint stands allowed with directions to the opposite parties to refund  Rs.46,82,501/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount deposited in different dates from 22.11.2006 till realization. The OPs are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) on account of deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant by the  acts of the OPs alongwith Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period  of 30 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period.   It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P.Act  would also be attracted. 

 

June 10th, 2022    Suresh Chander Kaushik,                   S.P.Sood

                             Member                                              Judicial Member                                 

S.K.(Pvt.Secy)