Madhur Taneja vs. M/s Dream Buildcon Pvt. Ltd etc.
Present:- Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for opposite parties-applicants.
Order:-
By this order we shall dispose of an application for dismissal of complaint filed by applicants-opposite parties.
2. It has been averred in the application that complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging himself to be the owner of the plot in question. In fact, as per record of the ops, the present complainant is not the owner of the plot in question. As per record, the plot in question was initially allotted to one Naresh Sachdeva son of Sh. Harish Sachdeva, resident of Sirsa who had executed plot buyer’s agreement with the op M/s Dream Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, aforesaid allottee transferred the above said plot in favour of one Raj Kumar and said Raj Kumar further transferred the above said plot in favour of present complainant and the complainant Madhur Taneja transferred this plot in favour of one Jatinder Kaur wife of Shri Gurbax Singh Rana, resident of Sirsa. In this way, Jatinder Kaur is the owner of the plot and complainant is not the owner of the same. In view of the above, complainant has nothing to do with the plot in question and has no locus standi to file this consumer complaint in respect of the plot in question. It has been further averred that even otherwise the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum because as per condition no.24 of the said agreement, this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction and the jurisdiction relating to all disputes relating to these plots only lies before the Delhi Court. The complainant has also raised the question of violation of the agreement between the parties which matter falls within the jurisdiction of Civil Court alone. Hence, this application.
2. The complainant filed reply to the application taking certain preliminary objections and it has been submitted that complainant has claimed retrospective relief from this Forum well within the preview of Contract Act. The ops have forced, created circumstances for the complainant to get deposited the alleged amount which is not permissible as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The ops had travelled beyond the scope of terms of the contract and they have no legal rights to raise such type of issues. Moreover, even after transfer, the complainant has every legal right to receive back the amount illegally, unlawfully received by ops by adopting pressure tactic, particularly when the subsequent purchase is not going to be affected for the same. The complainant has got every retrospective right to claim his relief as per the provisions of Contract Act, on the other hand the ops have no legal right to raise such type of issues by adopting technicalities in the matter. The ops have intentionally and deliberately taken such plea even when they are aware that the office of the ops is situated in Sirsa, the agreement was executed in Sirsa, the amount was received by ops from complainant in Sirsa and the property is also situated at Sirsa. Remaining contents of the application have been denied and prayer for dismissal of application has been made.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
4. The relevant facts of the complaint as given in the complaint to decide the present application are that on being allured from the advertisement of the ops, complainant alongwith his one friend purchased the plot after full payment and thereafter complainant purchased the share of his friend and became absolute owner of plot no.314 as per record of ops. Thereafter, it was found that ops have slowed down their speed for progress and failed to provide basic amenities and necessary developments. It is further alleged that earlier before purchasing the plot, the ops and their officials declared that no maintenance charges will be ever claimed by them before obtaining completion certificate from concerned departments. Now after construction of few houses in the colony, the ops have started to claim Rs.2.50 per square yard from every plot holder as maintenance charges. The complainant inquired about the completion certificate issued by the concerned authorities and making ops entitled for receiving the maintenance charges. The ops cleverly showed a letter for renewal of the licence and complainant could not catch the clever tactis of the ops and have paid maintenance charges of Rs.18013/- through cheque. But all of a sudden without any reason or the base, the ops issued notice in the shape of order that they have enhanced the monthly maintenance from 2.5 sq. yard to Rs.4.00 sq. yard. The complainant and other plot holders raised protest for the same and ops have now started to issue letters with the threat either to pay the demanded amount otherwise additional amount in the shape of penalty could be charged and plot could also be resumed. The ops have also failed to provide basic amenities and that they have adopted method of cheating, unfair trade practice qua the plot holders/ consumers. The ops 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 consideration. It is further alleged that surprisingly the ops 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 authority and right. The complainant feeling disappointed, cheated and dis-hearted from the conduct of the ops finally decided to sell his plot only with a view to get rid of from the consistent alleged demand being raised by them. Finally, the complainant contacted with the ops in the month of June, 2016 and disclosed his wish but as a matter of surprise instead of healing the gap of disappointment, the ops further raised another demand of Rs.36708/- and Rs.98565/- and the complainant finally decided and deposited the said amount through cheques on 4.6.2016 and 14.6.2016 under protest with the right to recover the same from the ops. Hence, this complaint seeking the reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
5. Now we see whether the complaint filed by complainant is maintainable or not? The ops alongwith their above said application have annexed a document showing that complainant has transferred the plot in question in favour of Smt. Jatinder Kaur and the said transfer has been confirmed by the ops on 20.8.2016 i.e. before filing of the present complaint which has been filed by complainant on 28.9.2016. Thus, the complainant had already sold the plot in question to Smt. Jatinder Kaur before filing of the present complaint on 28.9.2016 and therefore, the complainant had ceased to have any interest in the plot. He cannot be said to be the consumer of opposite parties on the date of filing of the present complaint. Even to claim retrospective relief, the complainant must be the consumer of the ops at the time of filing of complaint but he ceased to be the same on the date of filing of present complaint. Therefore, present complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable before this Forum. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the observations of our own Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Krishan Lal Malik, F.A. No.456 of 2014 decided on 17.10.2014.
6. Resultantly, the application moved on behalf of opposite parties is hereby accepted and accordingly complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainant may approach appropriate Forum/ Court for his redressal. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:5.5.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
