BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.90 of 2013
Date of Institution : 03.04.2013
Date of Decision : 15.12.2016.
1. Reema Nagpal (aged about 34 years) wife of Sh. Parmod Nagpal son of Sh. Mukand Lal;
2. Parmod Nagpal (aged about 39 years) son of Sh. Mukand Lal;
both residents of Plot No.40, Global Reality, Sector 21, Barnala Road, Sirsa.
……Complainants. Versus.
1. 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.
2. Global Reality Creation Ltd., registered office 11- Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, IV Delhi- 110024 through its Director/ Managing Director/ authorized signatory.
3. 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.
...…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 complainants.
Sh. Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, complainants’ case is that they purchased a plot bearing No.40 measuring 148 square yards at the basic rate of Rs.7200/- per square yard from opposite parties. As alleged, complainant no.2 also worked with ops as a broker and ops offered a special discount of 8% plus 4% on the basic rate of plot on the condition of full payment within 60 days. As such, plot was sold at the rate of Rs.6624 per square yard and total costs comes to Rs.9,79,027/-. The complainants made the payment of Rs.11,67,965/- to the ops vide ten different receipts as detailed in para No.7 of the complaint. In this way, ops received excess amount of Rs.1,88,938/- from the complainants. Further grievance of the complainants is that ops without taking consent and giving any intimation added Rs.74000/- in the account of complainant under the head of preferential location charges. Though in view of the offer letter and agreed terms, it was never decided nor agreed between the parties that the amount of preferential location charges to be charged from the complainants. Besides that the grievances of the complainants are that ops failed to provide the basic facilities/ amenities as promised by them. Hence, this complaint for the reliefs as detailed in prayer clause of the complaint.
2. 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 complainants 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. 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. Ops further denied the remaining allegations of the complainants.
3. By way of evidence, complainants produced their affidavits Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, copy of application Ex.C3, schedule Ex.C4, receipt Ex.C5, copy of agreement Ex.C6, Annexure-I Ex.C7, schedule of payment Ex.C8, copy of sale deed Ex.C9, receipts of payment Ex.C10 to Ex.C16, copy of allotment letter Ex.C17, reminder for payment Ex.C18, receipts Ex.C19 and Ex.C20. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, maintenance bill Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. Ops also filed their written arguments alongwith five photographs.
5. The reliefs sought for by the complainants are:- refund of Rs.1,90,000/- i.e. alleged excess amount charged by the ops, providing of basic amenities, maintenance of the site and compensation on account of harassment and tension etc. alongwith litigation expenses. To decide the reliefs sought for we have scrutinized the evidence produced by both the sides. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the plot in question was sold to the complainants at the rate of Rs.7200/- per square yard (Rs.8611.20 per square meter). Besides it, preferential location charges were agreed at the rate of Rs.500/- per square yard (Rs.598/- per square meter). As per Annexure-1 of the agreement, which is placed on file as Ex.C7, total cost of the plot comes to Rs.11,39,600/-. From the perusal of allotment letter which is on the record as Ex.C17, both the parties settled Rs.74000/- as preferential location charges. Agreement Ex.C6 and Annexure-I C7 and allotment letter Ex.C17 are duly signed by both the complainants accepting the terms and conditions of the agreement and allotment letter. From the perusal of above three documents i.e. agreement Ex.C6, Annexure C7 and allotment letter Ex.C17, it is clear that ops have not charged any excess amount from the complainants as alleged by them because price of the plot including preferential charges have been settled through these documents between the parties. Besides it, complainants produced various receipts of payments. Receipt Ex.C14 bearing No.340 dated 15.3.2011 shows payment of Rs.94,542/- whereas complainants shown the payment of Rs.95,542/- in their complaint and in this way complainants claimed excess payment of Rs.1000/-. Besides it, receipt Ex.C16 shown by the complainants against the cost of the plot also falsify their claim because perusal of this receipt Ex.C16 it is clearly reflected that amount of Rs.12,375/- was paid towards maintenance security of the plot. Now coming to the point of maintenance and basic facilities of the plot, from perusal of memo No.LC-639-PA(SN)-2015/22954 dated 24.11.2015 issued by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, it is clearly certified that development works namely water supply, sewerage, storm water drainage, roads, horticulture and street lights in the residential plotted colony comprising of licence mentioned above for 35.74 acres in the revenue estate of village Vaidwala, Sector -21, Sirsa as indicated on the approved layout plan and certified by Chief Administrator, HUDA Panchkula and read in conjunction with the certain terms and conditions (as detailed in the memo) have been completed to the satisfaction of Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh. From Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 which are receipts of maintenance/ electricity charges also reflect the development work of the site. Moreover, complainants purchased the plot from the opposite parties No.1 to 3 after knowing the physical position and basic amenities at the site.
6. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint. Resultantly, present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 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:15.12.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
