Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1062/2014

GEETA ARORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. K.M SHUKALA - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  1062/14

 

Shri Geeta Arora

D/o Shri S.C. Arora

R/o B-2, Surajmal Vihar

Delhi – 110 092                                                            ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Mr. K.N. Shukla, CEO

M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd.

517-A, 5^th Floor, Narain Manzil

23, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place

New Delhi – 110 001

 

2. M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd.

517-A, 5^th Floor, Narain Manzil

23, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place

New Delhi – 110 001                                                       ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 22.12.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 24.07.2017

Judgment Passed on: 25.07.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Ms. Geeta Arora against      Shri K.N. Shukla, CEO, M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1) and M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant Ms. Geeta Arora purchased a flat No. H-204, Tower ‘H’ in the group housing project “Capital Gateway”, Sec. 111, Gurgaon from Shri Ramesh Kumar and Smt. Alka Mangla in January 2013 for which fresh allotment letter was issued by M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. in his name.  An amount of Rs. 12,04,295/- paid by the original allottees stands transferred in her name.  She received a demand letter from company on account of recovery of interest on late payment of installments by the previous allottee.   This letter also showed that an amount of     Rs. 53,434/- was already received by the company.  However, the company forced her to pay the full amount of Rs.1,32,150/-, which was paid by her under protest. 

          She wrote several emails to M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. regarding the demand notice stating therein that any past payment of claim of interest on late payment of installments from previous owner cannot be recovered from her particularly for a period when she was not the member of the society.  She has further stated that in July, 2013, she was threatened by M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. that if the amount so claimed on account of late payment of installments by the previous owner was not paid by her, the allotment will be cancelled. Thus, she deposited the demanded amount of Rs.1,35,000/- under protest on 03.07.2013 to avoid cancellation of allotment vide receipt no. 3192 dated 03.07.2013. 

          She made a request for refund of amount deposited, but none of her emails were replied nor acknowledged.  She finally made a request for invoking the arbitration clause 32 stipulated under the agreement dated 28.01.2013, which was not replied. 

          Legal notice of dated 21.07.2014 was served upon them.  Thus, he has prayed for quashing of illegal demand raised by         M/s. Tashee Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. ; refund of Rs. 1,35,000/- with 18% interest; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs. 15,000/- legal fees.

3.       No written statement was filed on behalf of OP-1 & 2.

4.       In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined herself.  She has deposed on affidavit.   She has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.

          In defence, Shri Bharat Malhotra has deposed on affidavit for OP-2.  He has stated that the unit was transferred in the name of the complainant pursuing to her request for the same and after complying with all the formalities of transfer and post-execution of all the requisite documentation.  At the time of transfer, the transferee i.e. the complainant declared and acknowledged that the remaining consideration and other charges including interest and penalties, if any shall be paid by her as per the payment schedule/plan as per clause 4 of the affidavit of transferee.  The complainant never protests against making the payment.  At the time of transfer, the terms and conditions were explained to the complainant. 

5.       We have heard husband of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP.  It has been argued on behalf of OP-1 and 2 that at the time of transfer, the complainant herself gave declaration and acknowledged that the remaining consideration including interest and penalties, if any, shall be paid by her as per the payment schedule.  She has further argued that there was no unfair or restrictive trade practice or any deficiency on the part of OP.

          On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the complainant was compelled to make the payment.  He has further argued that the payment was made under protest.  To appreciate the arguments of husband of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP, the evidence on record has to be perused.  Firstly, a look has to be made to the declaration given by the complainant.  If the affidavit of transferee “Ms. Geeta Arora” is looked into, it is noticed that in Clause 4 of the affidavit, she has acknowledged that her predecessor have paid a sum of                   Rs. 12,04,295/- to the company on account of booking/housing.  He has further acknowledged that the remaining consideration and other charges (including interests and penalty, if any) for the housing unit shall be paid by her as per the applicable payment schedule/plan.  Thus, the fact remains that Ms. Geeta Arora, the complainant have undertaken to pay the balance amount, if any, including interests and penalties.  When she has undertaken to pay the balance amount on account of interests and penalties, she cannot say that she was not under obligation to make the payment.  Therefore, her plea that she has made the payment under protest cannot be accepted at all. 

          In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency on the part of OP.  This complaint is simply a case for recovery of the amount for which the complainant would have approached the civil court instead of filing the complaint in the consumer forum.  Thus, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                          President