Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/212/2015

Vikas Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s DLF Universal Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Aman Kashyap, Adv.

04 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                     UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint  No.	212 of 2015
Date of Institution	11.09.2015
Date of Decision	04.07.2016

 

 

1. Vikas Gupta S/o Shri T.R.Gupta, resident of House No.142, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh.
2. Geetika Gupta, w/o Sh. Vikas Gupta, r/o House No.142, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh.

                                                       .…Complainants

                           Versus

 

1. M/s DLF Universal Limited (earlier known as DLF India Limited), Plot No.2, Tower D, Ground Floor, Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh – 160101 (address sector 8).
2. M/s DLF Universal Limited (earlier known as M/s DLF India Limited), Shop No.101-102, DLF City Centre, IT Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh – 160101.

                                                …. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

             

Argued by:    

 

Sh. Aman Kashyap, Advocate for the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

               

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              In brief, the facts of the case, are that the Opposite Parties came up with the project namely Hyde Park Estate, DLF, New Chandigarh (Mullanpur Planning Area), Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab. As per the attractive project specifications and promises made by the Opposite Parties, the complainants applied for allotment of a plot measuring 350 sq. yards in the aforesaid project of the Opposite Parties. On the application of the complainants, they were allotted plot bearing No.HPE-R2-B311 vide allotment letter dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure C-1). It was further stated that the Opposite Parties gave ‘down payment’ rebate of Rs.8,03,244/- to the complainants and accordingly, they were required to pay Rs.87,76,912/- for the said plot. Thereafter, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.12 lacs vide receipt dated 31.03.2011 and Rs.44,95,148/- vide receipt dated 11.05.2011 (Annexure C-4) to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that being an employee of the Opposite Parties, a special discount of Rs.24,36,507.88 was given to the complainants and accordingly, revised payment plan was prepared by the Opposite Parties on 16.05.2011. Copies of the letter and revised payment plan are Annexure C-5 (colly.). Thereafter, complainant No.1 resigned from the service of the Opposite Parties in October, 2011 and, accordingly, he was no more entitled to discount, as per the policy of the Opposite Parties. As such, the said amount on account of special discount alongwith interest @12% i.e. Rs.26,04,727/- was paid by the complainants vide receipt (Annexure C-6). It was further stated that payment of the above said amount (discount amount) alongwith interest would be deemed to have been paid on 11.05.2011, on which date, the amount of Rs.44,95,148/- was paid. Thus, an amount of Rs.81,31,655/- i.e. 95% of the total sale consideration price stood paid by the complainants on 11.05.2011.  

2.           It was further stated that Buyer’s Agreement was dispatched vide letter dated 09.11.2011 and the same was signed on 28.12.2011, after receipt of 95% of the plot value, which is a clear violation of Clause 6(1) of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA). Copies of the letter and Agreement are Annexures C-7 & C-8. It was further stated that as per Clause 32 of the Agreement, the Company would endevour to offer possession of the said plot within 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties received 95% of the payment on 11.05.2011, thus, possession of the plot is required to be given within a period of 24 months from 11.05.2011 instead of 28.12.2011 (signing date of Agreement). It was further stated that as per Clause 53 of the Agreement, the complainants are entitled for interest @15% p.a. for the delayed possession.

3.           It was averred that the Opposite Parties demanded the remaining amount alongwith the cost of stamp papers, vide letter dated 17.11.2014 and the amount of Rs.20,50,661/- was paid by the complainants (Annexures C-9 & C-10), which included the remaining basic sale price & other charges and also included the registration charges.  Even after receipt of the amount, the Opposite Parties neither executed the conveyance deed nor gave possession of the plot up till 13.05.2015. It was further stated that conveyance deed was executed on 13.05.2015 and possession of the plot was handed over to the complainants on 13.05.2015 i.e. after about 5 months from the date of receipt of final payment. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession of the plot within a period of 24 months, as per Clause 32 of the Agreement, from 11.05.2011, whereas, the possession was handed over to the complainants only on 13.05.2015. Therefore, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay interest @15% p.a., as per Clause 53 of the Agreement, on the total deposited amount of Rs.81,31,855/-, for two years i.e. the delayed period. Thus, the total amount, which is to be paid by the Opposite Parties for delayed possession is Rs.24,39,556/- calculated upto 13.05.2015 and they are also liable to pay interest @15% p.a. on the amount of Rs.19.09 lacs paid to the Opposite Parties on 15.12.2014 till 13.05.2015 on account of delay in execution of conveyance deed, which came to Rs.1,19,313/-.  It was further stated that with regard to the External Development Charges, the Opposite Parties had claimed Rs.5,12,957.33 on 350 sq. yard/292.64 sq. m. plot, as per the payment schedule and the said amount was paid to the Opposite Parties on 11.05.2011 and on 15.12.2014. As such, the Opposite Parties charged the amount of Rs.1,51,198.33 in excess of what is actually payable on this count, as mentioned in paras No.15 & 16 of the complaint.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

4.           The Opposite Parties, in their joint written statement, took up certain preliminary objections, to the effect, that the complainants, being investor, had purchased the plot, in question, for earning profits, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, as such, they would not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the application for allotment and the dispute being of contractual nature, could not be considered under the C. P. Act. Apart from above objections, the Opposite Parties also took an objection with regard to referring the matter to the arbitrator. It was further stated that the complainants have not even paid the full amount as per the application for allotment. It was denied that the payment of Rs.26,04,727/- on 17.10.2011 in favour of the replying Opposite Parties should be deemed to have been paid on 11.05.2011. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties adhered all the clauses of PAPRA and the booking amount of Rs.12 lacs was received by them on 31.03.2011 at the time of allotment of the plot and subsequently payments, as mentioned in para no.8 of the written statement, was received by them after the execution of the application for allotment dated 31.03.2011. Therefore, even if Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 28.12.2011, therefore, the same cannot be held to be in violation of Clause 6(1) of PAPRA, as a valid Agreement of the application for allotment was executed between the parties on 31.03.2011 and their terms and conditions of the application for allotment were binding upon the parties. Copies of the application for allotment dated 31.03.2011 and Buyer’s Agreement dated 28.12.2011 are Annexure R-1 and R-2 respectively.

5.           It was denied that possession of the plot, in question, was required to be given within a period of 24 months from 11.05.2011, as alleged by the complainants. It was further stated that the Agreement was signed on 28.12.2011 and possession of the same was offered on 17.11.2014 (Annexure C-9), which clearly states that the Opposite Parties have obtained Completion Certificate and plot is ready for possession subject to remaining payment and registration of conveyance deed. It was further stated that due to delayed late interest charges being applicable, the complainants have not been eligible for delayed possession charges, as per Clause 32 of the Agreement. It was further stated that the complainants have not deliberately attached the final statement of account letter dated 16.11.2014, according to which, the total balance payable by the complainants was Rs.20,50,660.98. As such, the complainants made the payment of Rs.20,50,661/- vide cheque dated 12.12.2014 and subsequently, the conveyance deed was registered in their favour on 13.05.2015. It was further stated that the complainants wrongfully relied upon Clause 53 of the Agreement and sought interest @15% p.a. for the delayed possession. It was further stated that due to the delayed late interest charges being applicable, the complainants have not been eligible for delayed possession charges, as per Clause 32 of the Agreement. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties have rightfully charged the External Development Charges in accordance with Clause 9(a) of the Agreement and the allegations of excess charging of EDC are frivolous and baseless.  Moreover, EDC has been demanded and paid as per the existing payment plan choices given by the competent Government authority. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have already credited the complainant’s account with Rs.24,686.50 as interest towards the property registration charges paid by them and also refunded the excess amount in their account post sale deed execution Rs.11,712.25 vide cheques dated 20.07.2015 in favour of the complainants. Therefore, the complainants have already paid the delayed possession charges by the replying Opposite Parties and the same is apparent from the bare perusal of letter dated 05.08.2015 and cheques dated 20.07.2015. Copies of the demand letters and payment receipts are Annexure R-3 (Colly.). It was further stated that the complainants have wrongfully alleged that the replying Opposite Parties delayed for a period of 5 months in executing the conveyance deed on 13.05.2015 from the receipt of final payment dated 15.12.2014 because the Opposite Parties have already refunded Rs.23,424.50 vide cheques dated 20.07.2015 in favour of the complainants and the same has been paid on account of delayed possession charges. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.           The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.           We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.           The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Act (in short 1996 Act), this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint or not. It may be stated here that under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another, consumer complaint No.170 of 2015, decided on 01.04.2016, this Commission elaborately dealt with this objection noting down the background in which 1986 Act was enacted; the United Nations Draft Guidelines to protect the interest of consumers by passing Resolution No.39/248, to which our country is signatory; objectives of those guidelines; the fact that qua consumers, 1986 Act is a special legislation; the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha’s case (supra), it was specifically observed that where two different redressal agencies/Acts have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, with regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora would not be barred. In Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another’s case (supra), this Commission in Para 19 held as under:-

“19. It was specifically observed that even in those cases, where two different redressal Agencies/Acts, have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, with regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora would not be barred. Taking note of a weak position, in which a consumer is set against multinational companies and other big producers, it was said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),that, where there is any ambiguity in understanding the meaning of provision of law, or where two interpretations are possible, one beneficial to the consumer should be accepted. The same view was reiterated in LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC).”

9.               This Commission after dealing with the unamended/amended provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act and Section 3 of 1986 Act, and in view of law laid down in judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy  &  anr., I (2012) CPJ 1 (SC) and Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013 and judgments of National Commission in DLF Limited Vs Mridul Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Revision Petition No.412 of 2011 (alongwith other 11 connected cases), decided on 13.05.2013; Shri Satish Kumar Pandey and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited’s & Ors., Consumer Complaint No.427 of 2014 decided on 8.6.2015 and Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Adnan Samoon Rassiawala & 6 Ors., First Appeal No. 127 of 2016, decided on 18.03.2016, came to the conclusion that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and also by the National Commission in a large number of cases, Section 3 of 1986 Act provides for an additional remedy available to a consumer and the said remedy is also not in derogation to any other Act. Further the remedy under the 1986 Act is cost effective and much speedier than the proceedings before the Arbitrator. Referring the matter to the Arbitrator would defeat the very purpose of General Assembly Resolution No.39/248 and the provisions of 1986 Act and in view of above, the plea raised by Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 (in that case), was rejected. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. Similar view was reiterated by this Commission in in Praveen Kumar Arora and another Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, consumer complaint No.198 of 2015, decided on 04.04.2016, by further holding as under:-

“20. The 1986 Act provides for better protection of interests and rights of the consumers. For the said purpose, the Consumer Foras were created under the Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act, it is clearly provided that the said provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. The 1986 Act is special legislation qua the consumers. The poor consumers are not expected to fight the might of multinational companies/traders, as those entities have lot of resources at their command. In the present case, the complainants have spent their entire life earnings to purchase a unit, in a housing project, launched by the opposite party. It was their hope that they will live therein. However, their hopes were shattered, when despite making payment of entire amount towards price, they failed to get possession of a unit, in a developed project. As per established ratio of the judgment in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and also in the judgment of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),  and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), it was said that the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer be accepted. The opinion expressed above, qua applicability of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, has been given keeping in mind the above said principle.

21. In view of the above, the argument raised by Counsel for the opposite party that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, being devoid of merit, is rejected”.

10.          Further this Commission in case titled ‘Sukhjinder Singh Vs. M/s IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd.’, Complaint Case No.278 of 2015 decided on 18.04.2016, held as under:-

“Not only as above, execution of judgment/decree passed by the Consumer Foras is very easy and less time consuming. Invariably, in all the judgments passed, between one to three months’ time, is granted to the judgment debtors(s) to discharge liability. If it is not so done, and the order is not stayed in the meantime by the Higher Fora, two options are available with the complainant/decree holder. Section 25 of 1986 Act provides the procedure to enforce orders by the Consumer Foras. In Sector 25 (3), it is provided that where any amount is due from any person, under an order passed by any Consumer Fora, the concerned Consumer Fora, on an application moved by the decree holder, may issue a certificate to the Collector of the District, to recover the said amount, by way of land revenue, in terms of Section 72 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The said provision is also very stringent. The Collector is supposed to attach the holding of the judgment debtors to take the said property under his own management and control. The Collector is further supposed to manage the said property and raise all rents and profits accruing therefrom to the exclusion of the defaulter, until the decree is satisfied. The above procedure will consume at the maximum four to six months, for realization of the amount awarded. Further option is also available to a complainant/decree holder, to move an application under Section 27 of 1986 Act, which provides that where a trader or a person against whom, a complaint was made, fails or omits to comply with the order passed by the Consumer Fora, such party would entail award of punishment of imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one month, but may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than Rs.2,000/-, and may be extended upto Rs.10,000/-, or both. This provision is very effective, as and when application is moved under Section 27 of 1986 Act, for fear of imprisonment, it is seen that immediately the judgment debtor(s) make an attempt to comply with the order passed by the Consumer Foras. Whereas, to the contrary Section 36 of 1996 Act, provides that award shall be enforced, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in the same manner, as if it was a decree of a Court. Such a procedure is very costly and time consuming. Executing a decree would virtually mean fighting one more litigation, in a Court, to get enforcement of the award. If such a procedure is adopted, it will defeat the very purpose and spirit of 1986 Act. Accordingly, in this view of the matter and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, the arguments raised by Counsel for the opposite party, stands rejected.”   

 

11.         It was also so said by the National Commission, recently, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No. 346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

“In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra.  In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Others  - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.  [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 andNational Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.”

 

12.          In view of the above, and also in the face of ratio of judgments, referred to above, passed by the National Commission and this Commission, the arguments raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties, stands rejected.

13.          To defeat claim of the complainants, the next objection raised by the Opposite Parties was that the complainants, being investors, had purchased the unit, in question, for earning profits, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, as such, it would not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of 1986 Act. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record to show, that the complainants are property   dealers, and are indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Otherwise also, in a case titled as  Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the  residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the unit, in question, was purchased by the complainant(s), by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs  Nirmala Devi Gupta,  Revision Petition No. 3861 of 2014, decided on 26.08.2015. The complainants, thus, fall within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

14.          Another objection was raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that since the complainants sought enforcement of the Agreement, only a Civil Court can decide the complaint, and as such, consumer complaint was not maintainable. It may be stated here, that the complainants hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the unit, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 32 of the Agreement, the possession was to be delivered within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, defines ‘service’ as under:-

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both,  housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”

15.          From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, it is evident that housing/construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, as stated above, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainants have a remedy to file a suit, for specific performance, in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of the Act, can be availed of by them, as they fall within the definition of a consumer, as stated above. In this view of the matter, the objection of the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

16.          The next question, which falls for consideration, is, as to how much interest the complainants are entitled to on account of delayed handing over possession of the plot, in question. It is evident from Annexure C-9 that possession was offered to the complainants on 17.11.2014, whereas, the Plot Buyer’s Agreement was signed on 28.12.2011 (Annexure C-8) and according to Clause 32 of the said Agreement, the Opposite Parties were required to hand over possession by 24 months i.e. latest by 27.12.2013. Thus, it is clear that there was a gap of almost 11 months in offering the possession of the said unit. The complainants in their prayer clause of the complaint has claimed Rs.25,58,869/- alongwith interest on account of delayed handing over the possession of the plot, in question, whereas, he is actually entitled for delay of only 11 months i.e. from 27.12.2013 the deemed date of possession to 17.11.2014 the actual date of possession. Reliance has been placed upon this Commission’s judgment titled as D.S.Dhanda Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Complaint case No.94 of 2016,, decided on 02.06.2016 (alongwith two more cases bearing No.158 and 159 of 2016), wherein, it was decided that compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount to the complainant from the promised date of possession to the actual date of possession was granted. Accordingly, the complainants are entitled for interest @12% p.a. in lieu of compensation on the deposited amount for delay of 11 months from 27.12.2013 to 17.11.2014.

17.          As regards the excess External Development Charges (EDC) charged by the Opposite Parties, the complainants have sought refund of Rs.1,51,198.33 being the amount of excess EDC paid by them. An affidavit furnished by Sh. Rakesh Kerwell, Business Head/Director (North) of M/s DLF Universal, wherein, it is stated that the EDC is calculated as per notification issued by the competent authority and it is payable by the developer, as per the schedule of payment plan opted, issued by the authority. It is further stated that the EDC has been paid as per the scheduled payment plan and all EDC payments by the Company have been paid on time as per plan and the residential EDC component from the opted payment plan of 10 equated bi-annual installments have been proportioned on the total residential plotted/saleable area of the township/project. Further, the affidavit states that the EDC charges were demanded based on per sq. yard calculated and proportioned on the basis of individual’s saleable area of the plot. The methodology/ calculation of the same is depicted below :-

	Area in Acres	Total Component
Total Plotted Component	172.27	6181.26
Reserved Area	17.14	615.00
Net Plotted Component	155.13	5566.26
Area in sq. yds. as per layout		398434.28
EDC per sq. yd.		1397

 

EDC has already been paid to the authorities for undeveloped project area, which has not been yet sold by the Company. In view of the fore-going, the EDC per sq. yard works out to be Rs.1397/-. In the present case, the area of the unit is 350 sq. yards. The total EDC payable works out to Rs.4,88,950/- and not Rs.3,61,759/-, as stated by the complainants. However, the complainants have paid an amount of Rs.5,12,957/- to the authorities for undeveloped project area, which has not been yet sold by the Company. The Opposite Parties are, thus, liable to refund the balance amount of Rs.24,007/- (i.e. Rs.5,12,957/- less Rs.4,88,950/-) alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the respective date of deposit.

18.          As regards compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and humiliation, we are of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- may be granted.

19.          No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

20.           For the reasons, recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally held liable and directed in the following manner:-

(i)     To pay simple interest @12% p.a. in lieu of compensation, on the deposited amount for delay in handing over of possession of 11 months from 27.12.2013 to 17.11.2014, to the complainants, within 45 days from   the  date of receipt of a certified copy of  this   order.

(ii)     To refund the balance amount of Rs.24,007/- on account of excessive EDC charged by the Opposite Parties alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the respective date of deposit, to the complainants, within 45 days from   the  date of receipt of a certified copy of  this   order.

3. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
4. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.
5. In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay the interest mentioned in Clause (i) @15% P.A., instead of interest @ 12% P.A., from 27.12.2013 to 17.11.2014, interest @15% P.A. instead of @12% p.a., on the  amount mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of deposit, till realization, and interest @15% p.a. on the amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (iii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs.

21.          Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

22.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

04.07.2016

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

rb