| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA. Consumer Complaint no.56 of 2015 Date of Institution : 18.3.2015 Date of Decision : 30.11.2016. - Sham Lal (aged about 55 years) son of Sh. Ram Narayan, owner of Plot No.467 & 503 (co-owner), Global Spaces, Sector 21, Barnala Road, Sirsa R/o village Dhaban, P.O. Bupp, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa.
- Narender Bansal (aged about 31 years) son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Co-owner of Plot No.503, Global Spaces, Sector 21, Barnala Road, Sirsa resident of H. No.15/503/1, Near Sangam Palace, Bhagat Singh Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa.
- Pawan Kumar (aged about 48 years) son of Sh. Govind Ram @ Gobind Ram, owner of Plot No.442 (Co-owner) & 502, Global Spaces, Sector 21, Barnala Road, Sirsa, resident of H. No.36, village Dhaban, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa.
- Bhim Sain (aged about 61 years) son of Sh. Kewal Krishan Co-owner of Plot No.442, Global Spaces, Sector 21, Barnala Road, Sirsa, resident of H. No.40, Village Dhaban, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa.
- Rakesh Kumar (aged about 40 years) son of Sh. Din Dayal, owner of Plot No.476, Global Spaces, Sector 21, Barnala Road, Sirsa, resident of village Dhaban, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa.
- Om Parkash (aged about 60 years) son of Sh. Govind Ram, co-owner of Plot No.433, Global Splaces, Sector 21, Barnala Road, Sirsa, resident of H. No.36, village Dhaban, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa.
- Amit Kumar (aged about 28 years) son of Sh. Ram Lal, co-owner of Plot No.433, Global Spaces, Sector 21, Barnala Road, Sirsa, resident of H. No.151, village Alikan, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainants. Versus. - M/s Dream Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 10A, Ground Floor, Global Foler, DLF Golf Course Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon through its Director/ Managing Director/ authorized Signatory.
- Global Reality Creation Ltd., registered office 11- Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, IV Delhi- 110024 through its Director/ Managing Director/ authorized signatory.
- M/s Dream Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Sirsa C/o M/s Global Space Complex, Sector 21 adjacent to HUDA Barnala Road, Sirsa through its authorized signatory and responsible/ Incharge.
- Senior District Town Planner, Department of Country and Town Planning, Haryana, Hisar.
- Director General Country and Town Planning, Sector 18, Chandigarh.
...…Opposite parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA ………………… PRESIDENT SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL…MEMBER. Present: Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for the opposite parties No.1 to 3. Sh. Ajay Kumar, Govt. Pleader for opposite parties No.4 & 5. ORDER This complaint has been preferred by as well as seven complainants as permissible under the provisions of Section 12 (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date. 2. In brief, the facts arising out of the present complaint are that complainant no.1 purchased plot No.467 from its earlier allottee namely Sanjiv Kumar, complainants No.1 & 2 purchased plot no.503 from opposite parties No.1 to 3, complainants No. 3 & 4 purchased plot no.442 from opposite parties No.1 to 3, complainant no.4 purchased plot no.502 from the ops no.1 to 3, complainant no.5 purchased plot no.476 from its earlier allottee Mulakh Raj, complainants no. 6 & 7 purchased plot no.433 from ops no.1 to 3. All the plots have been allotted/ re-allotted in favour of the complainants by the ops no.1 to 3. As alleged, after purchase it was found that ops no.1 to 3 have slowed down their speed for progress and failed to provide basic amenities and necessary developments and on raising the objections in this regard, no pain has been taken by the opposite parties No 1 to 3. It is further alleged that ops no.4 & 5 are also playing a role in the day to day activities of other ops. As alleged, before sale of the plots ops no.1 to 3 declared that no maintenance charges will be claimed by them before obtaining completion certificate from ops no.4 & 5 but ops no.1 to 3 started wrongly to claim Rs.2.50/- per square yard from every plot holder as maintenance charges. Further, ops no.1 to 3 cleverly enhanced the maintenance charges up to Rs.4/- per square yard and ops No.1 to 3 now started to issue letters for payment of the demanded amount of maintenance charges threatening that additional amount in the shape of penalty could be charged. On demand of the complainants, ops no. 1 to 3 also refused to show the completion certificate issued by ops No.4 & 5. In reply to the RTI applications of complainant, op no.5 has categorically refused for issuing of any completion certificate in favour of ops no.1 to 3 and in this way, innocent consumers have been cheated by adopting unfair trade practices by ops in collusion with each other. It is further alleged that ops have also failed to provide basic amenities like sewer etc. It is further alleged that ops no. 1 to 3 have obtained a huge loan from Bank of India, New Delhi branch by mortgaging the entire property sold out to the plot holders. Ops No.1 to 3 have also indulged in monopolistic practice by increasing transfer fee without the consent of the plot holders. Hence, this complaint seeking the reliefs as detailed in the prayer clause of the complaint. 3. On notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the case by filing their written versions. Ops no.1 to 3 took the preliminary objections that complainants had executed the plots buyers agreement which was in between the allottees and M/s Dream Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., a company under the Companies Act, 1956 and settled the terms and conditions of the allotment. The terms and conditions of the agreements are binding in all respect on both the sides. As per condition No.24 of the said agreement, the present complaint is not maintainable in this Forum and this Forum got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as the jurisdiction relating to the disputes of these plots only lies with Delhi Court. Ops further denied the remaining allegations of the complainants. They have further replied that no clever tactics have been adopted by them and enhancement, if any has been made is strictly in accordance with the rules and terms and conditions of the agreement. As per clause No.18, cost of electric and water services connections etc. are to be paid by the buyers and as per clause No.3 of the agreement, rates of operations and facility management charges per month have been settled. 4. Ops no.4 and 5 simply replied that the licence of the said colony was granted vide licence No.483-494 in the year 2006 which has already been renewed vide memo No.23911 from 17.10.2014 to 17.02.2016. It is further replied that developer company/ firm had applied for completion certificate with op no.5 on 4.8.2011 and Director General Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh granted the part completion certificate as per the terms and conditions of licence vide Memo dated 24.11.2015. Ops no.4 & 5 further replied regarding the remaining allegations of complaint that they have no concern and it is between the complainants and ops nos. 1 to 3. 5. By way of evidence, complainants produced their affidavits Ex.C1 to Ex.C4, copies of various documents Ex.C5 to Ex.C55. Whereas, the ops no.4 & 5 produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of letters Ex.R2 & Ex.R3. Ops No.1 to 3 produced affidavit Ex.R4 and photocopy of statement of pending amount Ex.RZ. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. Both the sides i.e. complainants and ops No.1 to 3 submitted their written arguments which is repetition of their averments. Learned counsel for complainant has relied upon judgments of Hon’ble National Commission in cases titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Ved Parkash, 2012 (1) PCJ 287, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh Vs. Davinder Singh and Ors. 2006 (3) CPJ 320, Narain Dass Budhi Raja Vs. Chandigarh Administration and anr. 2007(1) CPJ 382 and also decision of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Improvement Trust, Barnala Vs. Dr. Narender Kumar, 2007(2) CPJ 340. Learned Govt. Pleader for ops No.4 & 5 has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Dlf Universial Ltd. and another vs. Director, T, and C Planning Haryana and other, 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) wherein it has been held that “Owner/ colonizer entering into agreement with plot/ flat owners and charging maintenance fee- The Director is not empowered to issue any directions directing the owners/ colonizer to stop charging maintenance free from the plot/ flat holders and also to “delete the relevant clauses from the agreement.” 7. After hearing both the sides and going through record, it is clear that the plots in question have been allotted/ re-allotted to the complainants with the settled terms and conditions of agreements, copies of which have been tendered by complainants themselves by way of their evidence as Ex.C13 to Ex.C24. In our view, both the parties are bound to comply with the terms of the agreements and violation if any on the part of either party in the terms and conditions of the agreement is not a subject matter of the Consumer Forum and the dispute related to the terms and conditions of agreements executed between the parties in respect of any sale and purchase of a property is a subject matter of the Civil Court. Moreover, complainants purchased the plots from the opposite parties No.1 to 3/ earlier allottees after knowing the physical position and basic amenities at the site. In view of case law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India cited as CPJ 2009 (486) Supreme Court U.T. Chandigarh Administration Vs. Amarjeet Singh and others, “any grievance by a purchaser/ lessee of existing site will not give rise to a complaint or consumer dispute and consumer forum will have no jurisdiction to entertain or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser/ lessee against the owner.” In the case in hand, complainants also purchased the plots as per existing site. Moreover, question of maintenance charges and completion certificates are to be decided in accordance with the agreement executed between the parties and the violation of agreement is a subject matter of Civil Court as discussed above. Therefore, the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for complainant are also not applicable in this case. The authority cited by learned Govt. Pleader for ops no.4 & 5 is fully applicable in this case. 8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Resultantly, present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainants may approach appropriate Court for their redressal. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Announced in open Forum. President, Dated:30.11.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa. | |
