Haryana

Karnal

CC/700/2019

Dr. Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Alpha G. Corp. Development Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Kulwant Kadyan

21 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNAL.

 

                                                Complaint No.700 of 2019

                                                Date of Inst: 11.10.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 21.02.2024

 

Dr.Rajkumar son of late Shri Priyatam Singh, resident of 39, Ranjit Enclave (Ashoka Nursery) Kunjpura Road, karnal, Aadhar 8605 7023 3506.

…….  Complainant

Versus

1.     Alpha G. Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. Project Office, Sector-28-29, Village Baldi, G.T. Road, Karnal, through its Managing Director.

2.     Alpha G: Corp Development Pvt Ltd. Golf View, Corporate Tower, Wing-A, Golf Course road, Sector-42, Gurugram.

3.     The Manager, Alpha G:Corp Development Pvt. Ltd (Alpha International City), Karnal.

                                                                 …… Opposite parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amdned upto date.

 

 

Before:    Shri Jaswant Singh…………President

                Sh.Vineet Kaushik……….Member

                Dr.Suman Singth…………Member

 

 

Argued by: Shri Raj Kumar, complainant in person.

Shri Lalit Kansal, alongwith Avi Rana, authorized person  of the OPs.

 

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:

 

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred as the ‘Ops’) on the averments that the complainant is a retired principal Scientist from ICAR-IARI in August 2018 and he purchased a plot in Alpha City, Karnal. The OPs offered a construction linked payment plan to secure its payment, in which he was told that paid EDC and IDC will be adjusted in it and a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from HDFC Limited was approved. After some time, he was told that paid EDC and IDC cannot be adjusted, therein. He requested to refund back the paid EDC and IDC, the OPs told that it will be adjusted at the time of last payment. For this, he again requested the company/OPs that he should be paid interest on that amount, but company flatly refused. To sort out the issue, the he met the head office of the company, in Gurgaon. In the meantime, two installments fellen due. Even after repeated requests, the OPs did not solve the problem. They pretend to waive off the interest on due installments, if he would pay the dues in 15 days. He was forced to pay the due amount pending from the already approved bank loan. It was another story that such interest was waive off as a mass. Later, he paid a hefty interest to the bank. Even after 6-7 years, no buyer was interested to buy his plot, so he requested to surrender the plot to company as per company’s policy but company refused with the assurance to help in sale of his plot which was never been done. The complainant had to settle after his retirement, hence, he was forced to sell the plot in the market with heavy losses of more than 5 lacs.  The complainant has filed his ITR in which he has incurred a capital loss of approximately 25 lacs. Even company charged increased EDC and IDC to the tune of Rs.1,35,208/- and Rs.35,067/- as interest, company refused to transfer the plot without paying it. He came to now that Builder Association has a stay from the Court against the increased EDC and IDC (which is about Rs.1800/- crore in Haryana). How company can charge such payment which was not paid to Government. Inspite of, company charged interest of Rs.35,067/- on that amount. It is absolutely disgusting with him. Total amount of Rs.1,70,275/- charged from him illegitimate. Despite repeated request, the said amount was not refunded back to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed their joint written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, abuse of process of law; barred by limitation; etc. On merits, it is pleaded that in the month of May, 2011, the complainant showed his interest to buy a plot in the project being developed by the OPs and in order to express the same, submitted an application form dated 26.05.2011 for allotment of a plot. Based upon the application form submitted by the complainant, the respondent company allotted a plot bearing No.538 admeasuring 250 square yards vide allotment letter dated 29.06.2011 to the complainant for a total sale price of Rs.49,62,500/-. Thereafter, on 19.10.2011, a plot buyer agreement was executed between the respondent company and the complainant, wherein the complainant has agreed to all the terms and conditions of the plot buyer agreement. After completion of basis infrastructure of the township, the OPs sent a letter dated 30.12.2015 to complainant inviting him to get their property demarcated and to get the boundary wall constructed alongwith calculation sheet of the pending dues. Vide letter dated 30.12.2015 and then on 14.05.2016, the OPs again offered the possession of the respective plot to the complainant. On 23.09.2017, complainant sent a letter to OPs requesting for surrendering the plot on account of some financial constraints. On 07.10.2017, OPs sent a letter to complainant in reference and reply to his letter dated 23.09.2017, wherein it was informed to the complainant that as the development work was already completed before 30.12.2015 and other buyers/allottees have either already taken over the possession of their respective plots or are in the process of taking over the plot at this stage, it was not possible for OPs to accept the request of the complainant to cancel the allotment. In the month of April, 2018, the complainant informed the Ops that he intends to sell his plot to Mr.Rajesh Kamboj and Mrs.Ritu Kamboj and requested the OPs to initiate the process of the same. Based on the request made by the complainant, the OPs issued No Objection letter to complainant on 18.05.2018. As on date Mr.Rajesh Kamboj and Mrs.Ritu Kamboj, are the owners of plot bearing No.538 and the complainant has no right, title or interest left in the said plot in question. Accordingly, the OPs cannot be held liable for complainant’s admitted callous and failure. In essence, since the inception, the OPs have acted bona fide and good faith and no deficient service are attributable to the OPs. Therefore, all allegations in the complaint are false, baseless and merely made to harass and extort money from the OPs.  The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of application reminder Ex.C1, copy of sale customer ledger Ex.C2, copy of newspaper cutting Ex.C3, copy of approval of loan Ex.C4,  copy of payment schedule Ex.C5, copy of approval of home loan Ex.C6, copy of confirmation of change of payment plan Ex.C7, copy of notice of payment Ex.C8, copy of reminder dated 21.04.2017 Ex.C9, copy of letter dated 30.12.2015 Ex.C10, copy of call letter Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 06.07.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             Shri Avi Rana, authorized person of OPs has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.OPW1/A, copy of board resolution Ex.OP1, copy of affidavit Ex.OP2, copy of indemnity bond Ex.OP3, copy of sale deed Ex.OP4, copy of demand letter and reminder Ex.OP5, copy of letter of possession Ex.OP6 and Ex.OP7, copy of reminder letter Ex.OP8, copy of letter for surrender and its reply Ex.OP9, copy of reply letter Ex.OP10, copy of letter by complainant Ex.OP11, copy of reply letter dated 08.11.2017 Ex.OP12, copy of letter dated 17.11.2017 Ex.OP13, copy of letter dated 28.2.2018 Ex.OP14, copy of letter dated 13.03.2018 Ex.OP15, copy of application form Ex.OP16, copy of allotment letter Ex.OP17, copy of tri-parti agreement Ex.OP19 and copy of No Objection Ex.OP20 and closed the evidence on 17.10.2023 by suffering separate  statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that he purchased a plot from the OPs company in the year 2012 and also paid EDC and IDC etc.  At the time of purchase of plot, the OPs told that paid EDC and IDC will be adjusted in it and after sometime, they refused to adjust the same. He was forced to pay the due amount pending from the already approved bank loan. Even after 6-7 years, no buyer was interested to buy his plot, so he requested to surrender the plot to company as per company’s policy but company refused with the assurance to help in sale of his plot which was never been done. The complainant had to settle after his retirement, hence, he was forced to sell the plot in the market with heavy losses of more than 5 lacs.   The OPs charged increased EDC and IDC to the tune of Rs.1,35,208/- and Rs.35,067/- as interest. He came to now that Builder Association has a stay order from the Court against the increased EDC and IDC (which is about Rs.1800/- crore in Haryana). How company can charge such payment which was not paid to Government. Despite repeated request, the said amount has not been refunded back to him, hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that, the respondent company allotted a plot bearing No.538 admeasuring 250 square yards vide allotment letter dated 29.06.2011 to the complainant for a total sale price of Rs.49,62,500/-. Plot buyer agreement was executed between the parties. The mandatory EDC and IDC was also paid by the complainant to the OPs. In the month of April, 2018, the complainant informed the OPs that he intends to sell his plot to Mr.Rajesh Kamboj and Mrs.Ritu Kamboj and requested the OPs to initiate the process of the same. Based on the request made by the complainant, the OPs issued No Objection letter to complainant on 18.05.2018. Now, Mr.Rajesh Kamboj and Mrs.Ritu Kamboj, are the owners of plot bearing No.538 and the complainant has no right, title or interest left in the said plot in question. Moreover, said EDC and IDC will be deposited by the OPs with the government, if the verdict of the Court goes against the builder, thus, the complainant is not entitled for refund of EDC and IDC. The present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. All allegations in the complaint are false, baseless and merely made to harass and extort money from the OPs. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a plot from the OPs in the year of 2012 and also paid EDC and IDC to the OPs. It is also admitted that the complainant has sold the said plot to  Mr.Rajesh Kamboj and Mrs.Ritu Kaboj in the year 2018 vide agreement Ex.OP2.

11.           In the present complaint, the complainant has sought a relief for refunding of EDC and IDC of Rs.1,70,275/-. The said amount has been deposited by the complainant in the year 2012 with the OPs. Now, the complainant alleged that OPs had not deposited the said amount with the government and kept the same with them and he is entitled for refund of the said amount. It is the OPs who will liable to deposit the EDC and IDC with the government and complainant cannot claim the same.  

12.           The said amount has been deposited by the complainant with the Ops in the year 2012 and he has sold the plot in question in the year 2018 alongwith all rights appurtenant with the said plot to Mr.Rajesh Kamboj and Mrs.Ritu Kamboj and handover all the original receipts with regard to deposition of cost of the plot alongwith other charges like EDC, IDC, maintenance, etc.

13.           Further, limitation for filing a complaint before the Commission, has been described under Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is reproduced as under:-

1. The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

 

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay. 

 

14.           The cause of action, if any, has arisen in the year 2012 and the limitation for filing the complaint in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is two years from the date of cause of action but the present complaint has been filed in the year 2019, i.e. after the gap of seven years from the date of cause of action. Moreover, neither any separate application for condonation of delay nor any prayer in the complaint has been sought by the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and not maintainable before this Commission.

15.           The complainant has sold the plot in question in the year 2018. It is not possible that complainant had not charged the EDC and IDC charges from the vendee at the time of selling of the plot. Moreover, it is also not possible that OPs had transferred the said plot to the new purchaser, without clearing all the dues including IDC and EDC and issue NOC. Thus, it appears that the complainant has sold all the rights including IDC and EDC charges.

16.           Furthermore, the complainant has not impleaded the vendor of the plot in question namely Mr.Rajesh Kamboj and Mrs.Ritu Kamboj, as party in the present complaint, which were necessary parties in the present complaint. It is they, who can clarify whether the complainant has received the paid EDC and IDC from them or not. Thus, the present complaint is also bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.

17.           As discussed above, the complainant has sold the said plot in the year 2018 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2019, when the complainant has already sold his all rights appurtenant with the said plot, hence, at the time of filing the present complaint, the complainant was no more consumer of the OPs.  

18.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Dated: 21.02.2024   

                                                               

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                           Member                          Member