Haryana

StateCommission

A/525/2015

RAM PHAL BHARDWAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRATRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

15 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal    No  :   525 of  2015

Date of Institution  :     12.06.2015   

Date of Decision    :     15.09.2015 

 

1.      Ram Phal Bhardwaj son of Ganga Ram, Resident of C-80, NFL Township, District Panipat.

2.      Smt. Neelam Bhardwaj wife of Ram Phal Bhardwaj, Resident of C-80, NFL Township, District Panipat.

                                      Appellants-Complainants

Versus

1.      M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, 115 Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

 

2.      M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, Regional Office, Ansal Sushant City, Panipat.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

CORAM:

                             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                          

For the Parties:  Shri Ram Phal Bhardwaj, appellant-complainant in person.  

                             Shri Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for respondents-opposite parties. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The un-successful complainants are in appeal against the order dated June 1^st, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Panipat, whereby complaint No.287 of 2013 was dismissed.

2.      Ram Phal Bhardwaj and his wife Neelam Bhardwaj-complainants-appellants, purchased flat No.D-1-5544, Ground Floor, Sushant City, Panipat from Krishna Devi w/o Sh. Satish Kumar, Model Town, Panipat. The respondents-opposite parties transferred the flat in complainants’ name on 13.01.2010 (Annexure-A). Sale-deed /conveyance deed (Annexure R-10) was executed in favour of complainants on March 13^th, 2013. The opposite parties vide letter dated 07.09.2012 (Annexure C-2) raised demand of Rs.70,245.86 plus service tax on account of enhanced External Development Charges (EDC) in view of letter issued by Director General, Town & Country Planning (DGTCP), Haryana, Chandigarh. The complainants deposited the above said amount on 31.10.2012 (Annexure C-5).

3.      The complainants filed the instant complaint before the District Forum with the grievance that the above mentioned EDC related to license Nos.119-124, 106-117 of 2007, 118 of 2008 and 20 of 2009 whereas the flat of the complainants pertained to license No.1178-1184 of 2006. It was alleged that the above said EDC was wrongly charged from them by the opposite parties. Thus, they sought refund of the same alongwith interest etcetera.

4.      The opposite parties in their written reply stated that as per Clause 1.7 of the agreement, the above price was inclusive of External Development Charges and Internal Development Charges. And in case of any upward revision thereof by the government agencies, the same was recoverable on pro-rata basis from the buyer, as per clause 1.8 of the agreement and the terms and conditions contained in LC-IV agreement. The complainants purchased the above mentioned flat in the ‘Sushant City’ and the EDC was calculated on pro-rata basis by dividing the total EDC demanded by the DTCP in respect of the entire project, amongst all the unit holders of the said project and the EDC was recovered from the complainants on that basis.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

6.      The EDC charged by the Government vide letter dated 21.08.2006 pertained to license Nos.119-124, 106-117 of 2007, 118 of 2008 and 20 of 2009 which were different to the license relating to the land underneath the flat of the complainants, that is, license No.1178-1184 of 2006. It is not disputed that the opposite parties have developed ‘Sushant City’ on the big chunk of land which pertains to different licenses including licence in which flat of complainant fell. There were number of licenses and combined altogether ‘Sushant City’ was developed.

7.      Clause 1.7 of the agreement (Annexure C-1) pertains to EDC which reads as under:-

                             “1.7   External Development Charges.

That the above priced is inclusive of External Development charges and internal Development Charges. In case of any upward revision thereof by the government agencies, the same would be recovered on pro-rata basis from the buyer. No further intimation/call notice regarding payments will be sent and it will be the responsibility of the Buyer to adhere strictly to the payment schedule.”

8.      A perusal of ‘Sale-deed/Conveyance Deed’ (Annexure R-10) shows that the property falls within “Sushant City’ and does not pertain to any particular license.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondents-opposite parties has specifically stated that only rateable EDC has been recovered from all the allottees. Since the agreement provided for payment of enhanced EDC in the event of upward revision after the agreement and the opposite parties having placed on the file proof of payment of EDC to the Government, the levy of EDC from the complainant as well as other allottees was not an unauthorized act and therefore was per the agreement.

10.    In view of the above, the order passed by the District Forum in dismissing the complaint does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 15.09.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL