BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No. 645 of 2013

                                 Date of institution:          20.12.2013

                                                Date of Decision:           30.03.2015

1.     Gaurav Garg son of Saroj Kumar Garg

2.     Ginny Garg wife of Gaurav Garg.

Residents of House No.659-B, JTPL City, Sector 115, Mohali.

                                                                        ……..Complainants

                                        Versus

1.     JTPL Township Pvt. Ltd. through its Director:

Head Office:      JTPL House, F-82, Shivaji Place, District Centre, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

Site Office:        JTPL City Mohali, Sector 115/115-A, Kharar Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab.

2.     Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Punjab, India.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.

Present:    Shri Saurabh Garg, counsel for the complainants.

Shri Jai Raghunandan, counsel for OP No.1.

(MRS. MADHU P. SINGH, PRESIDENT)

ORDER

                During proceedings of the complaint, learned counsel for the complainants made a statement on 29.05.2014 that he does not press the claim against OP No.2 and the MA application filed by OP No.2 for dismissal of the complaint against it was disposed off accordingly.

                The case of the complainants is that initially floor No.659 B (First Floor) measuring 1177 sq. ft. on 195 sq. yard in JTPL City Mohali  was allotted to Shakti Chander Sharma and Mrs. Anjna Sharma by the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) No.1  @ Rs.620/- per sq. yard per unit vide allotment letter dated 23.04.2010 Ex.C-1. The tentative EDC charges for the floor were Rs.1860/- per sq. yard and Rs.25,000/- were to be paid mandatory as club membership charges.  The allotment was subject to execution of buyer’s agreement to be executed on receipt of copy of allotment letter.   The buyer’s agreement Ex.C-2 was executed between the original allottee and OP No.1 on 26.11.2010. The due payment was made to OP No.1 as per the payment schedule.  As per Clause 7 of the agreement Ex.C-2 individual buyer was to pay equally on proportionate basis EDC, IDC and other charges. As per Clause 32 of the agreement club membership on payment of Rs.25,000/- was compulsory.  The possession was delivered to the allottees by OP No.1 vide letter dated 24.12.2011 Ex.C-3. The entire payment was made as per the payment schedule as is evident from ledger details  Ex.C-4 issued by OP No.1  The original allottee i.e. Shakti Chander Sharma agreed top sell the flat to the complainant vide agreement dated 15.04.2013 and OP No.1 issued NOC dated 22.04.2013 for transfer of the flat in the name of the complainants.  The OP No.1 vide letter dated 18.05.2013 Ex.C-5 confirmed the transfer of allotment in the name of the complainants by receiving transfer charges and also forwarded the receipt of Rs.24,82,476/- for transfer of allotment in favour of the complainants.  OP No.1 also issued allotment letter duly endorsed in favour of the complainant.  Thereafter sale deed of the plot having ownership over the 1/3 area of the plot i.e. 65 sq. yards was executed in favour of the complainants vide sale deed dated 05.06.2013.  As per the terms of the buyers agreement, the individual buyer was to pay EDC, Local Body rates and other charges, in proportion to the area of the plot. OP No.1 has charged EDC charges @ Rs.620/- per sq. yard whereas from the information gathered by one Megh Raj under RTI Ex.C-5 the complainants were to pay EDC charges of Rs.37,593/- to  OP No.1  but actually an amount of Rs.83,307/- has been charged by OP No.1 towards EDC charges. As per letter dated 10.01.2006 issued by Department of Housing and Urban Development, the ED charges were to be paid before launch of the project which was to be borne by OP No.1 but OP No.1 has fraudulently charged these charges from the complainants.  OP No.1 on realizing its mistake has refunded certain amount to the complainants on account of EDC charges on 24.08.2013. The complainants have also paid to the OP Rs.25,000/- towards mandatory club charges but till date OP No.1 has failed to provide the facility of club. OP No.1 has charged from the complainants interest @ 24% per annum on the delayed amounts. Similarly the complainants are also entitled to interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of Rs.76,807/- charged in excess on account of EDC and on Rs.25,000/- paid on account of mandatory club charges.  In the brochure issued at the time of launching of the project, OP No.1 had promised to give secured accommodation but on the festival of Diwali, at the back of the complainants some thieves sneaked into their house. Complaint made to OP No.1 in this regard did not get any results.

                With these allegations, the complainants have sought directions to OP No.1 to refund them excess amount of EDC alongwith interest @ 24% per annum; to provide service of club and to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of club charges till the club service is provided; to indemnify the financial loss suffered on account of theft;  to pay them compensation of Rs.1.00 lacs for mental agony and trauma and Rs.18,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.             OP No.1 in the written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants have got this flat through transfer from Shakti Chander Sharma to whom the payment was made by the complainants. The complaint is also barred by limitation as the sale deed was registered on 05.06.2013. On merits, it is pleaded that no payment beyond the agreed terms has been charged from the complainants.  The promised facilities are in place and the complainants alongwith other allottees are residing in the township for the last couple of years.  On the request of original allottee, the booking was transferred in the name of the complainants. OP No.1 has denied the possession was given vide letter dated 24.12.2011. In fact this letter was addressed to original allottee for intimation regarding getting the registry done and taking possession. The original allottee sold the flat to the complainant and hence the flat was registered in the name of the complainants and the possession was handed over to them thereafter.   OP No.1 has not recovered any excess EDC than applicable rates. The EDC is levied by GMADA and the same is recovered from the intending purchasers. The facility of club is in operational and some members are availing the services of the club. Thus, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Evidence of the complainants consist of their affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-8.

4.             Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Mandeep Singh, its Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-6.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments filed by them. 

6.             Admittedly Floor No.659-B (First Floor) has been allotted to the complainants. Admittedly sale deed of the flat has been executed on 05.06.2013 and an amount of Rs.25,29,475/- towards sale consideration of the flat and EDC and other charges has been paid by the complainants to the OP No.1.  Out of this amount the sale consideration is Rs.22,50,000/- whereas the remaining amount is towards EDC and other charges. 

7.             Now the controversy between the parties is regarding excess charging of EDC charges beyond the prescribed rate fixed by GMADA and non provision of club facility.  However, there is no detail of the amounts deposited on account of EDC and other charges from either side.

8.             OP No.1 has contended that the EDC has been charged from the complainants as per the rates fixed by GMADA. On the contrary, the complainants have produced on record the information sought by one of the allottee from GMADA under RTI, the perusal of which shows that OP No.1 has charged excess rate of EDC than fixed by GMADA.  As per the complainants OP No.1 has charged Rs.1,860/- per sq. yard as EDC charges whereas as per information received from GMADA Rs.578.51 per sq. yard is chargeable as EDC. Therefore, OP No.1 has charged excess amount of Rs. 1281.49 which the complainants are entitled to refund alongwith interest from the date of payment.  There is no rebuttal evidence by OP No.1 in this regard.  Therefore, on this account we find the act of OP No.1 as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice particularly once it was in the knowledge of the leviable rates issued by the competent authority and still it had charged excess amount on account of EDC. Therefore, the complainants have been successful in proving the case on the basis of RTI information and the excess amount charged by OP No.1 on account of EDC.

9.             Now the next question arises whether OP No.1 has not provided the club facility in the complex despite having charged club charges amount from the complainants. As stated above, since there is no detail of the amount paid by the complainants on account of EDC and other charges, we do not know how much amount has been paid by the complainants for club facility. However, it is admitted fact between the parties as per agreement to sell as well as sale deed Ex.OP-3 that OP No.1 will be providing club facility to the residents of the complex including the complainant. Perusal of Ex.C-8 the photographs clearly shows a board indicating site for club house and community centre but no where the building is in place.  Therefore, on this account also the complainants have proved the case of non existence of club house facility. Thus, despite having received the amount under the head other charges by OP No.1 way back in the year 2013 OP No.1 has failed to provide this facility and this act of OP No.1 is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It will be relevant here to mention that a Consumer Complaint No.267 of 2013 titled as Kusum Lata Vs. JTPL decided by this Forum on 02.01.2014, wherein the same issue of lack of club facility was raised by the complainant and this Forum has directed the OPs to complete the club facility within six months of the order. It seems that the status of club facility remains the same i.e. non existence till the date of filing of the present complaint as nothing has come on record to show the existence and functional club house facility. Therefore, on both the counts i.e. charging of excess amount of EDC and non refund of the same to the complainant and further non existence of club house facility is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.

10.           In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following direction to OP No.1 to:

(a)    to refund the excess amount of EDC, if any, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of excess charging till actual payment, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(b)    to provide facility of club to the complainants within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(c)    to pay to the complainants a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

                 Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

March 30, 2015.

                                                                  (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (A.B. Aggarwal)

Member