BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No. 43 of 2014
Date of institution: 02.01.2014
Date of Decision: 30.03.2015
1. Surinder Kumar son of Dharam Chand
2. Uma Wanti wife of Surinder Garg
Residents of House No.2564, Magazine Street, Sangrur (Punjab).
……..Complainants
Versus
1. JTPL Township Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, 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 they were allotted plot No.526 measuring 240 sq. yard in JTPL City Mohali by the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) No.1 vide allotment letter dated 03.03.2009 Ex.C-1. The tentative EDC charges for the plot were Rs.1860/- per sq. yard and Rs.25,000/- were to be mandatory paid as club membership charges. The allotment was subject to execution of buyers agreement to be executed on receipt of copy of allotment letter. The possession letter dated 09.05.2011 Ex.C-2 was issued to the complainants by OP No.1. The complainants had also paid the necessary payment due at the time of allotment. The complainants made the payments in time as per payment schedule as is evident from ledger Ex.C-3. The sale deed (Ex.C-4) of the plot No.526 was executed by OP No.1 in favour of the complainants on 06.07.2011. The possession of the plot was handed over to the complainants on 10.07.2012 vide letter Ex.C-5. As per the terms of the allotment letter, 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.1860/- per sq. yard whereas from the information gathered by one Megh Raj under RTI Ex.C-6 the complainants were to pay EDC charges of Rs.1,38,802/- to OP No.1 but actually an amount of Rs.3,07,598/- has been charged by the OP 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 the excess amount of Rs.24,000/- on account of EDC charges to the complainants on 19.07.2011. The complainants have also paid to OP No.1 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.2,83,598/- charged in excess on account of EDC and on Rs.25,000/- paid on account of mandatory club charges.
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 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 barred by limitation as the plot was allotted on 03.03.2009 and sale deed was registered on 06.07.2011 and the complaint has been filed in February, 2014. The complainants entered into agreement with OP No.1 out of free will and got registered the plot on their name. On merits, it is pleaded that no payment beyond the agreed terms has been charged from the complainants. The complainant themselves have not moved any application before the concerned authority for approval of lay out plan nor they have planning to do construction on the plot. OP No.1 has further averred that the complainant was apprised vide allotment letter dated 03.03.2009 that they have to pay EDC, local body rates and other charges as levied by the authorities. 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 amount of Rs.18,000/- was refunded due to the mistake of OP No.1. 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 No.1 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-7.
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 plot No.526 measuring 240 sq. yards has been allotted to the complainants. Admittedly sale deed of the flat has been executed on 06.07.2011 and an amount of Rs.20,89,000/- 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.15,57,600/- 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.C-3 that OP No.1 will be providing club facility to the residents of the complex including the complainant. Perusal of Ex.C-7 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 2011 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
