BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.206 of 2016
Date of Institution : 29.8.2016
Date of Decision : 13.12.2017.
- Geeta (aged about 40 years) wife of Sh. Bhushan Monga, owner of Plot No.38, Global Spaces, Sector 21, Barnala Road, Sirsa resident of House No.29, Shah Satnam Singh Nagar, Sirsa.
- Rekha Sharma (aged about 34 years) wife of Dr. Ram Mehar Singh, resident of H. No.D-27, University Campus, Ch. Devi Lal University, Sirsa, Owner of Plot No.33, Global Spaces, Sector 21, Barnala Road, Sirsa resident of H. No.15/503/1.
- Anita Arora (aged about 34 years) wife of Sh. Deepak Arora and Deepak Arora son of Sh. Chhabil Dass Arora, both residents of H. No.172, HUDA, Sector-20, Part-I, Sirsa, owner of Plot No.223 Global Spaces, Sector 21, Barnala Road, Sirsa.
- Ashok Kumar (aged about 40 years) son of Sh. Satpal, R/o Gali No.01, Ganesh Vihar, Auto Market Road, Near Devi Lal Park, Sirsa (Haryana).
- Harbans Lal (aged about 42 years) son of Sh. Bhag Ram Malhotra, R/o C-13, University Campus, Ch. Devi Lal University, Sirsa.
- Sanjeev Kumar (aged about 40 years) son of Sh. Amar Singh, R/o C-19, University Campus, University Campus, Ch. Devi Lal University, Sirsa.
……Complainants. Versus.
- M/s Dream Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 10A, Ground Floor, Global Foier, 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.
- District Town Planner, Department of Country and Town Planning, Haryana, HUDA Complex, Sirsa.
- Director General Country and Town Planning, Sector 18, Chandigarh.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA ………………… PRESIDENT
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the complainants. .
Sh. M.M. Parkeet, Advocate for the opposite parties No.1 to 3.
Ms. Rinku Lata, Govt. Pleader for opposite parties No.4 & 5.
ORDER
In brief, the facts arising out of the present complaint are that complainant no.1 purchased plot No.38 from the ops no.1 to 3, complainant no.2 purchased plot no.33 from its earlier allottee namely Subhash Chander, complainant no.3 purchased plot no.223 from its earlier allottee namely Balwan Singh, complainant no.4 purchased plot no.458 from ops no.1 to 3, complainant no.5 purchased plot no.441 from ops no.1 to 3 and complainant no.6 purchased plot no.34 from the 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 no. 1 to 3. 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. On demand of the complainants, ops no. 1 to 3 also refused to show the completion certificate issued by ops No.4 & 5. The ops No.1 to 3 are also indulged in monopolistic practice by increasing transfer fee without the consent of the plot holders In reply to the RTI applications of complainants, 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. It is further averred that ops no.1 to 3 have decided to receive per unit electricity charges by their own parameters i.e. more than the commercial charges for which they have no legal right. The ops no.1 to 3 are wriggling out from their immediate liability. The officials of the company had made statement on 4.5.2015 before the Chairman, PLA Sirsa that they will not enhance the development charges till the completion of work of four walls and other development work of the colony meaning thereby that on that day they admitted this fact that still they have failed to provide the basic amenities. Similar statement was given before DTP Sirsa on 15.4.2015. The ops no.1 to 5 are in collusion with each other harassing all the complainants on one pretext or the other. On one occasion an application before the C.M. Window was moved and upon enquiry ops no.4 & 5 postponed the matter with the lame excuses only with a collusive intention to delay the matter despite the fact the ops no. 4 and 5 are fully aware that ops no.1 to 3 are responsible, negligent, deficient for their work. Surprisingly the ops no.4 and 5 have finally lingered on the matter with a evasive reply whereas ops no.4 and 5 are the direct controlling authority over the work of ops no.1 to 3. The act and conduct of ops no.4 & 5 are self explanatory from their letter endorsement No.2687 dated 9.6.2015 which is speaking volume about their conduct. The interpretation of the court order has not been properly conducted by ops no.4 and 5 which shows their helplessness qua ops no.1 to 3. This letter was issued after more than one year of the complaint to the C.M. Window. It is further averred that the complainants are regularly visiting and requesting the ops for acceptance of their genuine request but to no effect. Hence, this complaint seeking the reliefs as detailed in the prayer clause of the complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the case by filing their written statements. 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. The complainants purchased the plots in question voluntarily and after understanding all the terms and conditions for the same after seeing the spot. It is wrong and denied that the basic amenities have not been provided by the answering ops as alleged. In fact, all the basic amenities/ facilities have been provided by the answering ops in respect of the plots in question as per the terms and conditions of the allotment as given in the agreement arrived at between the parties. The area is fully developed. It has been further submitted that the complainants have failed to perform their part of the contract as per the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. The complainants have failed to execute the sale deed/ conveyance deed in respect of the plots allotted to them despite several letters and the reminders issued to them from time to time, therefore, the answering ops have charged the holding charges @ Rs.25/- per square yard per month being levied with effect from 1st April, 2015. It is wrong and denied that answering ops have no legal right to enhance the monthly maintenance. The answering ops have charged the amount as per law and the rules. 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. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been
3. 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. It is further replied that with regard to aforesaid licensed colony, Director General Town and Country Planning, Haryana, granted the part completion certificate 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. It is further submitted that as per record of DTP office, complainant as well as representative of colonizer were called on 10.4.2015 and 15.4.2015 for resolution of grievance. The grievances of complainant was also kept in meeting of committee held on 12.4.2016 constituted for redressal of genuine grievances and complaints of allottees of licensed colonies. It is further submitted that both complainant as well as representative of colonizer were again called for personal hearing on 2.6.2016 for amicable resolution of grievances of the complainant. The answering ops submitted the report to the higher authorities by describing the facts of the matter as well as ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide this office memo no.2686 dated 9.6.2016. Finally the complaint filed by one of the complainants namely Smt. Anita Arora was disposed off on C.M. Window. With these averments dismissal of complaint qua ops no.4 and 5 has been prayed for.
4. By way of evidence, complainants produced their affidavits Ex.C1 to Ex.C6, copies of various documents Ex.C5 to Ex.C26. Ops No.1 to 3 produced affidavit of Sh. Satish Kaushik, Site Manager Ex.R1, copies of various documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R32, photographs Ex.R33 to Ex.R41. Ops no.4 and 5 produced affidavit of Sh. Balraj Singh, Junior Engineer Ex.RW1/A.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainants, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3 as well as learned Govt. Pleader for opposite parties No.4 & 5 and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. Learned counsel for complainants has filed written arguments in which it has been submitted that complainants No.1 to 6 have purchased plots bearing Nos.38, 33, 223, 458, 441 and 34 from opposite parties no.1 to 3/ previous allottees and had executed sale/ buyer agreements. It has also been submitted that ops no.1 to 3 have slowed down their speed for progress and failed to provide basic amenities and necessary developments. The ops no. 4 and 5 are having over all control over the activities of ops no.1 to 3. No maintenance charges are to be claimed by ops no.1 to 3 before obtaining completion certificate from ops no.4 and 5. The ops no.1 to 3 have started to claim Rs.2.50/- per square yard from every plot holder as maintenance charges and now they have enhanced the monthly maintenance charges from Rs.2.50 square yard to Rs.4/- per square yard whereas in the agreement such charges are Rs.250/- plus 50 paise only. It has been further submitted that seventeen amenities as mentioned in para no.15 of their written arguments which ops no.1 to 3 have allegedly failed to provide. It has also been submitted that ops no.1 to 3 have obtained a huge loan from the Bank of India, New Delhi Branch by mortgaging the entire property sold out to the plot holders, meaning thereby that on one hand the ops are enjoying the huge mortgaged money from the bank and on the other hand they have collected huge amount from the plot holders as a consideration. The ops no.1 to 3 are further issuing reminders for registration of the sale deeds of the plots to all the plot holders without providing basic amenities and obtaining completion certificates etc. It has been further submitted that ops no.1 to 3 have decided to receive per unit electricity charges by their own parameters i.e. more than the commercial charges. Learned counsel for the complainants has relied upon judgments of Hon’ble National Commission in cases titled as Ram Kishore Tiwari Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority, 2005 (2) CPJ 132, Megacity Developers & Builders Ltd. & anr. Vs. Seetha Ratna K. Rao, I (2012) CPJ 225 (NC), Cosmo Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs. Sameer Saxena, I (2013) CPJ 31 (NC), VLX Realtors Private Limited Vs. Parul Jain 2013 (3) CLT 610, True Zone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhoop Singh III (2014) CPJ 584 (NC) and DDA Vs. Rajinder Prasad and others 2014 (3) CPJ 489 and judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission, Panji in case titled as Henry Angelo D’Souza Vs. Mac Enterprises, 2000 (1) CPJ 579.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 has also filed written arguments in which it has been submitted that assertions regarding non availability of the basic amenities like electricity, water, boundary wall, sewerage etc. and not maintainability of water lines properly etc. made in this complaint and charging of the excess amount are wrong and false. The complainants had executed the plot buyer’s agreements which were between the allottees and M/s Dream Building Pvt. Ltd. and as per the condition No.24 of the said agreement, present complaint is not triable by this Forum and any dispute arising out of this agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction of Delhi Courts only. The basic amenities and facilities have been provided at the spot as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainants have sought the relief beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement. It has been further submitted that complainants have failed to perform their part of the contract as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties and they have also failed to execute the sale deed/ conveyance deed in respect of the plots allotted to them despite several letters and the reminders issued to them from time to time, therefore, the ops have charged the holding charges at the rate of Rs.25/- per square yard per month being levied with effect from 1st April, 2015. The cost of electricity and water services connection is not included in the aforesaid price and shall be payable by the buyers in addition to price of plot and further the buyer shall pay on demand to the seller amount to be determined at the time of providing sewer and water connection from the mains laid along the road serving the plot. It has been further submitted that as per clause No.3 of the agreement, rates of operations and facility management charges per month have been settled. Learned counsel for ops no.1 to 3 has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases titled as Dlf Universial Ltd. and another vs. Director, T, and C Planning Haryana and other, 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 235 and U.T. Chandigarh Administration and anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & ors. 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 401.
8. Learned Govt. Pleader for opposite parties no.4 and 5 has contended that it is a matter between the complainants and ops no.1 to 3 as alleged amenities were to be provided by ops no.1 to 3 and not by ops no.4 and 5 and moreover, the partial completion certificate was issued by ops no.4 and 5 and the parties had executed buyer agreements and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreements. Ops no.4 and 5 have no any role to pay while enforcing the terms and conditions of the agreements.
9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the judgments relied upon by both the parties. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that complainant no.1 had purchased the plot bearing No.38 measuring 154.38 sq. yards at the rate of Rs.4500.20/- per sq. yard, complainant no.2 had purchased plot no.33 (re-allotted) measuring 154.38 sq. yards, complainant no.3 had purchased plot no.223 measuring 284.89 sq. yards at the rate of Rs.4865.20/- per sq. yard, complainant no.4 had purchased plot No.458 measuring 200.93 sq. yards at the rate of Rs.4500.20 per sq. yard, complainant no.5 had purchased plot no.441 measuring 200.93 sq. yards at the rate of Rs.4865.20/- per sq. yard and complainant no.6 had purchased plot no.34 measuring 154.38 sq. yards at the rate of Rs.7162.50/- per sq. yard. All the complainants had executed the buyer agreements qua the terms and conditions which were settled between buyers and the sellers ops no.1 to 3 and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreements. Though, the complainants have filed present complaint for enforcement of the terms and conditions of the buyer agreements, the copies of which have been tendered in evidence by the complainants as Ex.C7, Ex.C10, Ex.C12, Ex.C13, Ex.C14 and Ex.C15 and they have made prayer that ops no. 1 to 3 be directed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreements agreed by both the parties and they be further directed to complete the work of filling and leveling of land upto road level before asking for registration of the sale deeds. It is further admitted fact on record that sale deeds are to be executed qua the plots so purchased by complainants from ops no.1 to 3. The complainants have made prayer that ops be directed for all external developments in compliance of the terms of the agreement as agreed by them, the ops be directed to receive transfer fee of the plot at the rate of Rs.125/- per sq. yard and in case of excess charged amount, they be further directed to refund the same to the concern alongwith interest, the ops be directed to issue no dues certificate from all the departments in favour of the complainants, the ops may be directed to provide basic facilities of electricity, water, boundary wall, sewerage and sewerage treatment plant etc, the ops be further directed to maintain proper water lines, green belt and also to provide pure water for drink and to maintain account books and record of all the plot holders, the ops no. 1 to 3 be directed to obtain no dues certificate from the bank where they have mortgaged the property of plot holder, the ops no.1 to 3 be directed to refund the maintenance charges earlier received from the complainants excessively after Rs.2.50 sq. yards alongwith interest till realization; the ops no.1 to 3 be directed to withdraw the enhanced maintenance charges and be directed to receive the same at the rate of Rs.2,50/- per sq. yards from all the plot holders, they be directed to withdraw their reminder letter for the purpose of registration of plot without providing basic amenities and other facilities, the ops no.1 to 3 be directed to reduce the transfer fee or in the alternative fix the same with the consent of all the plot holder by holding a general meeting in the office at Sirsa, the ops be directed to develop the area with their costs and not to demand any amount from the complainants and other plot holders, the ops no.1 to 3 be directed to provide proper electricity and to receive the electricity charges as per the tariff and guidelines of DHBVNL, further excess amount earlier received from the occupants may ordered to be refunded. Besides this, the complainants have also sought compensation and litigation expenses for harassment etc.
10. The perusal of buyer agreements as well as terms of agreement reveal that both the parties are bound by terms and conditions of the plot buyer agreements. The perusal of the agreements reveal that value of all the six plots which have been purchased by the complainants no.1 to 6 exceeds Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty lacs) and the matter involving pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is Rs.20,00,000/-. Moreover, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has laid down in the case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC) that “value of goods purchased or services hired and availed of by an individual consumer or the size, or date of booking/ allotment/ purchase of flat would be wholly irrelevant in such a complaint where complaint relates to the sale/allotment of several flats/ plots in same project/ building.” It has further been laid down that “Deficiencies pointed out in construction/ development of property. It is the value of goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.”
11. So, since the value of the plots purchased by the complainants are more than Rs.20,00,000/-, as such jurisdiction of this Forum is barred and the present complaint is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs, but however, the complainants are at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/ Commission for redressal of their grievances and may seek exemption of time during which present complaint remained pending before this Forum as per law. 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:13.12.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
