District Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.447/2022
Date of Institution: 23.08.2022.
Date of Order: 11.01.2023.
RakeshSaini son of Late Sh.MamrajSaini, Resident of House No.25/11, Garhi Mohalla, Old Faridabad, Haryana-121002.
………Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s BPTP Ltd.28, ECE House, 1" Floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 through its principal officer/ Director.
2. M/s BPTP Ltd. OT-14, 3rd Floor,Next Door, Parklands, Sector 76, Faridabad-121004 Through its principal officer/ Director.
3. M/s BPTP Ltd.M-11, Middle Circle,Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 Through its Principal officer/Director.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: AmitArora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Om Parkash Saini, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Jay Shankar, AR on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant booked a EWS flat in BPL Reservation Category area 200 sq. ft. in theiralleged upcoming future housing project Namely EWS-Park Arena, Sector 80, Faridabad in 2013 and the complainant believing and trusting upon the respondent paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- in advance and the respondent issued a receipt no. 2012/1400042453, dated 28.02.2013 inter-alia confirming having received the said amount. The complainant was a BPL Holder and was under in EWS/BPL Category and also submitted the documents in this regard to the respondents. On 16, December 2013, the respondents issued an allotment letter in favor of complainant and a EWS Flat unit No. 510, at Park Arena, Faridabad was allotted to complainant. with Customer Code no. 53/145648/12 by this allotment letter. The total cost of this Flat was Rs.1,35,000/- as per allotment letter and complainant had paid the installments as per payment schedule of the allotment letter and the complainant has paid a total payment of Rs. 1,31,441/- (Rs.15000/- vide receipt no. 2012/ 1400042453, dated 28.02.2013, Rs.39123/- vide receipt no. 2013/1400024118, dated 27.12.2013, Rs.38659/- vide receipt no. 2013/1400026702, dated 14.02.2014, Rs.38659/- vide receipt no. 2013/1400028789, dated 20.03.2014 to the respondents. The complainant in the dreams of a flat trusted upon the respondent and made almost full payment of the said flat to the respondent with this hope that the EWS flat should be handed over to the complainant within two or three years of making the payment, but the respondents did not get possession hand over the said flat. After making the payment, complainant visited their office a number of times and requested the officials of respondents to give the possession of the flat but the officials of respondent could not even reply satisfactorily. The officials of respondent stated complainant that they were arranging another EWS flat in another project as this project was not completed and also requested complainant to take some time for arranging anotherEWS Flat. The complainant approached several times in their office, upon which the respondent inspite of satisfying complainant, looked sternly and tried to avoid the matter. The complainant sent legal notice dated 11.07.2022 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) hand over the possession of EWS Flat No.510, at Park Arena, Sector 80, Faridabad by getting balance amount to the complainant.
b) an amount of Rs.1,31,441/- alongwith interest pendentilite @ 24% PA from the last amount. received till its realization
c) payRs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper.
2. Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the Complainant had indulged in misrepresentation and concealment of true facts and documents with a view to create prejudice against the OP. In order to understand the correct and actual facts, it is imperative to enumerate the brief background of the EWS Policy and the project in question. In this regard, it is submitted as under:
i) the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning department in accordance with Memo No. LC-147- 7/16/2006-2TCP dated 03.02.2010, issued guidelines for allotment of plots/flats earmarked for Economical Weaker Section (EWS)/lower income group category in the Licensed Colony being developed by private colonizers under the Provisions of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, which was later supersession vide Memo No. LC-147-7/16/2006-2TCP dated 08.07.2013, which was also later supersession vide Memo No. LC-147- 7/16/2006-2TCP/14950 dated 17.05.2018 by the concerned department, whereby the licensee was obliged to reserve 15 per cent of the total number of residential flats in Group Housing colony for allotment to such eligible applicants as prescribed under the policy. The minimum size of EWS flat would be 200 sq. ft. and the maximum price for allotment of EWS flats in group housing colonies would be as fixed by the Government from time to time which presently is Rs.1,50,000/- per flat, i.e., @ Rs.750/- per sq. ft.
11. in terms of DTCP policy, the Opposite Party duly advertised in regard to allotment of EWS flats wherein the obligatory information regarding proposed EWS Flats such as description of flats i.e., number and size of the flat under allotment, payment schedule and other essential requirements, terms and conditions for draw of lots of the EWS flats, were comprehensibly apprised.
iii. Several applicants, including the Complainant herein, applied for allotment of EWS Unit. Therefore, the Complainant after being satisfied with the details, out of his own volition applied for allotment of EWS flat in the project 'Park Arena, Sector-80, Faridabad', by submitting application dated 01.10.2012 bearing no. 1746 after duly affixing his signature, accompanied by booking amount of Rs. 15,000/- against which receipt dated 28.02.2013 was issued by the OP. The Complainant was neither allured by the OP as alleged nor any forged documents were shared with the Complainant as falsely alleged in the Complaint.
iv. in terms of the applicable policy then, the Opposite Party conducted draw of lots and intimation to this effect was given via public notice published in the daily newspapers "and accordingly the list of successful candidates for allotment along with waiting list of 25% of total number of flats was published in the daily newspaper. It was further submitted that name of the Complainant was pronounced as successful candidate in the draw of lots, accordingly the Opposite Party vide letter dated 16.12.2013 provisionally allotted 'Unit no. 510, EWS flats - Park Arena' tentatively admeasuring about 200 sq. ft.It is pertinent to mention here that in case any successful candidate surrendersthe EWS booking/allotment, candidates in the waiting list proceed ahead andaccordingly becomes eligible for EWS allotment.
v. It was not denied that the Complainant had till date paid Rs. 1.31441/-against the said booking, however, it had been concealed that while Rs. 1.27,500/- had been received by the OP towards the cost of the unit, Rs. 3,941/- had been paidtowards taxes to the Government.
vi. the Complainant had concealed from this Hon'ble Commission that the OP had informed the Complainant that due to technical reasons the construction/ development work at the project was halted and that thereafter due to the pandemic, which continued for over one-and-a-half years, projections for proposed timelines for possession were hugely impacted. In the meanwhile, about 90% of the allottees in the Project had already taken exit from the Project upon receipt of refund of the money deposited by them. Thus, due to force majeure circumstances, it was impossible for the OP to hand over physical possession of the unit in question to the Complainant in the foreseeable future. In this background, on numerous occasions, the OP tried to contact the Complainant with respect to refund of the deposited amount along with reasonable rate of interest but the Complainant on one pretext or the another declined the settlement terms while reiterating exorbitant considerations at the cost braced by the OP ie, expecting to receive extraneous monetary benefitsfrom the OP in today's deprecating status of real estate industry. In fact, the Complainant had not only concealed such material facts from this Hon'ble Commission but also misrepresented that the officials of OP stated that they were arranging another EWS Flat in another project or took some time for the same. The Complaint under reply was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed since the Complainant had indulged in raising vexations and speculative litigation and has claimed exorbitant compensation which was flagrant abuse of the process of law. Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– M/s. BPTP Ltd. with the prayer to:a) hand over the possession of EWS Flat No.510, at Park Arena, Sector 80, Faridabad by getting balance amount to the complainant.b) an amount of Rs.1,31,441/- alongwith interest pendentilite @ 24% PA from the last amount. received till its realization. c) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .d) any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A- affidavit of Rakesh Saini, Ex.C1 – letter dated December 16,2013, Ex.C2 to C5 – receipts, Ex.C6 – legal notice,, ex.C7 to 9 postal receipts,Ex.C1- letter dated 26.07.2022.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated
and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Jay Shankar, authorized representative of the opposite parties,, ex.R1 – Resolution,. Letter dated 03.02.2010 regarding policy for allotment of land/flats earmarked for economical weaker section in the licenced colonies, Ex.R-3 – application form, Ex.R-4 – Allotment letter.
6. During the course of arguments, Shri Jay Shankar, Authorized Representative of opposite party has made a statement that since 90% customer of this project has taken exist from this project. Resultantly no construction activity
is going on in this project as well as the EWS Towers. Accordingly, company is ready to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 9% to the complainant.
5. On the basis of the statement of Shri Jay Shankar, AR on behalf of opposite party, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to the opposite party to refund the paid amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till its realization. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 11.01.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
