Haryana

StateCommission

A/753/2016

OMAXE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHAN CHANDER VERMA - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GUPTA

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

                                                First Appeal No.753 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution: 17.08.2016                         Date of Decision: 31.08.2017

 

M/s Omaxe Ltd., 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 through its authorized representative namely Sh.Dheeraj Sharma.

 …..Appellant

                                      VERSUS

1. Krishan Chander Verma S/o Gyani Ram
2. Smt.Vidya Devi (since deceased) wife of Krishan Chander through her L.R. Sanjeev Kumar s/o Krishan Chander.
3. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Krishan Chander, R/o H.No.490, Main Bazar, Bobby ki Dukan, Village Chhara,Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar.

          …..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.Bhupinder Singh, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Jagjit Beniwal, Advocate counsel for the Respondents.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It was alleged by the complainants that they purchased residential unit from opposite party (O.P.) costing Rs.57,60,000/- as per agreement dated 31.05.2012.  In total they paid Rs.60,12,514/- till 20.04.2014. vide letter dated 13.03.2014 O.P. demanded Rs.1,79,400/- pertaining to EDC and IDC. Rs. 53820/- were paid for electrical equipment cost and Rs.6279/- for utility under protest.  Even thereafter O.P. sent an another letter dated 31.08.2012 about this fact.  Neither the possession was delivered to them nor sale deed was executed so the demand was altogether wrong.

2.      O.P.  filed reply controverting the averments of the complainants and alleged that undue demand was made from the complainants. They were liable to pay the amount in question as per agreement executed in between them.  The complainants were not entitled for possession till the payment of the amount in question.  There was no delay on it’s part. Objections about territorial jurisdiction, accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (in short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 29.02.2016 and directed as under:-

“Therefore, it is directed that the respondent shall deliver the possession of property of complainants i.e. property No.OHHB/GROUND/197/A in the project of the respondent to the complainants without raising any further payment in the shape of statement of account dated 13.03.2014 & letter dated 31.08.2014 from the complainants. However, it is made clear that the amount deposited, if any, towards the above statement of account dated 13.03.2014 and letter dated 31.08.2014 be refunded to the complainants by the respondent. Further, we direct the respondent to get executed and register the sale deed of property No.OHHB/Ground/197A in favour of complainants and pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants on account of mental agony, harassment, litigation expenses etc. suffered by them. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-opposite party has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainants vehemently argued that O.P. did not deliver possession in time and sale deed was also not executed whereas they have already deposited Rs.60,12,514/-, so the demand raised by O.P. vide letter dated 13.03.2014 EX.P-4 was altogether illegal. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.

7.      These arguments are of no avail. From the perusal of letter Ex.P-4 it is clear that Rs.1,79,400/- are pertaining to EDC and this dispute is beyond the jurisdiction of consumer forum as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in HUDA Vs. Sunita (2005) SCC 479.

8.      Further, from the perusal of details of unit annexed with agreement Ex.P-7 it is clear that complainants were liable to pay for electricity development charges etc. For ready reference the said portion is reproduced as under:-

“Service Tax, Stamp Duty, Registration Charges, Cost towards Individual Electricity Meter, Water & Sewerage, External Development charges, Infrastructure Development charges, Lease rent etc. (any increase thereof), any other cost are not included in price and shall be payable by the allottee(s)/Buyer(s) on demand by the company or on offer of possession of the said unit or as and when demanded by concerned competent Authority (in case of EDC & IDC, Lease Rent, other Govt. Levy, imposition etc.)

9.      It is well settled proposition of law that parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement and cannot get out of the same. In these circumstances complainants cannot run away from their liability to pay the aforesaid amount.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects. Impugned order dated 29.02.2016 is altogether against law and facts and cannot be sustained. Resultantly the same is hereby set aside, complaint is dismissed and appeal is allowed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

August 31st, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench