District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 320/2022.
Date of Institution:15.06.2022.
Date of Order: 24.02.2023.
Vikas Kumar Hans aged about 46 years son of Shri Deena Natha Hans R/o House No. 933, Sector-7C, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd., Corporate & Registered Office: 14/3, Mathura Road, Sector-45, Faridabad – 121003, Haryana through its Director/principal Officer.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Complainant in person with Sh. Utpal Chaudhary Advocate.
Sh. Amrit Singh, counsel for opposite party
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was in search of affordable flat in the NCR area and the complainant came to know that the opposite party launched a Group Housing Project under the name & style “Shree Homes by Sarvome”, Sector-45, Faridabad. Hence, the complainant applied for allotment of affordable flat in its said project and deposited a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- vide cheque No. 019454 drawn on Central Bank of India and the opposite party accepted and acknowledged the said booking amount vide application No. 7119 dated 25.11.2019. At that time, the opposite party assured the complainant that when the draw of lots were done, will inform the complainant in this regard. The opposite party conduct the draw of lots on 10.07.2020 and allotted a residential flat No. 1802, tower No. 12, 2BHK (Type-A), Carpet Area 645.80 sq. ft. balcony area 100 sq. ft. in the said project “Shree Homes by Sarvome” Sector-45, Faridabad, Phase-2 for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,33,000/- approx. vide allotment letter dated 11.07.2020 and also provided customer code: 1084/7119. At the time of booking of said flat, the opposite party assured that they had tie up with Nationalized Banks and they would get the 90% of the BSP of said flat financed as housing loan in favour of the complainant for the repayment of sale consideration of the said flat as per payment schedule. After allotment of said flat, the complainant requested the opposite party to provide requisite documents and the name of the tie- up banks, so the complainant might avail the housing loan for the repayment of the sale consideration of the said flat but the opposite party pressurized the complainant for the payment of 25% of the BSP of the said flat and hence, the complainant had to arrange the said fund and paid a sum of Rs.2,66,000/- vide cheque No. 280515 dated 24.07.2020 drawn on Axis Bank Limited and the opposite party issued receipt No. SH/RC20-21/00491 dated 24.07.2020. The complainant used to make visit to the office of the opposite party and requested to provide the requisite documents for loan but of no use and hence the complainant himself approached a bank for the housing loan and then the Bank Manager demanded builder buyer agreement. Copy of license of project which was issued by DTP, clearance certificate of departments which were obtained by builder/opposite party for said project etc. for the sanction of housing loan. Hence, the complainant also approached the opposite party and demanded said documents but the opposite party always avoided the matter on one pretext or the other and also raised demand for further payment vide demand letter dated 23.12.2020 with a verbal threat if the complainant would not make said payment, then they would cancel the allotment of the said flat. The entire world was facing financial crunch due to covid-19 pandemic but the complainant had to make arrangement for further payment of Rs.4,00,000/- and paid the same to the opposite party vide cheque No. 423668 dated 17.07.2021 drawn on Axis Bank Limited and duly accepted by the opposite party receipt No. SH/REC-21-22/0748 dated 17.07.2021. Thereafter, the complainant used to make visits to the opposite party, sent several emails for his bonafide intention to perform his part to purchase the said flat. The complainant also requested the opposite party to provide the necessary documents of the said flat, so that the complainant might avail the housing loan for the payment of balance sale consideration of said flat, but the opposite party had been avoiding the matter on one pretext or the other and till date did not provide the requisite documents to the complainant. On one hand the opposite party failed to perform his part of assurance and on the other hand had been demanding the balance sale consideration by sending threats email to make the payment otherwise the allotment would be cancelled on 08.04.2022 and further on 6.06.2022 and thereafter also sent another email on 26.05.2022 vide which alleged that the allotment of said unit was cancelled. Whereas the complainant used to reply/revert the email on 29.05.2022 by showing his bonafide intention and also mentioned that the complainant visited the office of opposite party on 29.05.2022 for payment but eh opposite party’s officials refused to receive the same. The opposite party further sent the reply on 30.05.2022 that the said allotment of the complainant was cancelled. Hence, it was crystal clear that the opposite party had malafide intention to cancel the allotment because the rates of the said flats had been increased. The complainant was ready and was still ready to make the balance sale consideration and with this bonafide intention several times approached the opposite party for the documents so he could avail the housing loan but the opposite party did not pay any heed. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) withdraw the impugned notice of cancellation of impugned notice dated 26.05.2022 which had no sanctity in the eyes of law and to restrain the opposite party from allotting the said flat to anyone except the complainant.
b) execute builder buyers agreement in respect of above said flat in favour of the complainant and also provide requisite documents for availing housing loan for the repayment of balance sale consideration of the above said flat.
c) not to demand any interest or penalty for the period of alleged delay.
d) not to raise further demand of balance sale consideration till disbursing the loan amount.
e) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
f) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that both the complainant and the opposite party i.e. licensee/builder were governed by the Affordable Housing Policy 2013 notified on 19.08.2013 by the Town and Country Planning Department Govt.of Haryana and all its subsequent amendments as was clearly understood and admitted by the complainant. The policy states under Clause 5(iii)(i) “if any successful applicant fails to deposit the installments within the time period as prescribed in the allotment letter issued by the colonizer, a reminder might be issued to him for depositing the due instalments within a period of 15 days from the date of issue of such notice. If the allottee still defaults in making the payment, the list of such defaulters might be published in one regional hindi news-paper having circulation of more than ten thousand in the state for payment of due amount within 15 days from the date of publication of such notice, failing which allotment may be cancelled. In such cases also an amount of Rs.25,000/- may be deducted by the colonizer and the balance amount shall be refunded to the complainant…” Thus the cancellation of the allotment of the complainant had been done duly under the confines of the policy. The deduction was further valid lawful in terms of the notification dated 05.07.2019 issued by the Town & Country Planning Department, Govt. of Haryana notifying the amendment to the “Affordable Housing Policy 2013” under the provision of Sec.9A of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 whereby Clause 5(iii)(h)of the 2013 policy was amended as”
“On surrender of flat by any successful allottee, the amount that can be forfeited by the colonizer in addition to Rs.25,000/- shall not exceed the following:-
S.No. Particulars Amount to be forfeited
(aa) In case of surrender of flat Nil
Before commencement of project
(bb) upto 1 year from the date of 1% of the cost of flat.
Commencement of the project.
(cc) upto 2 years from the date of 3% of the cost of flat
commencement of the project.
(dd) after 2 years from the date of 5% of the cost of flat.
Commencement of the project.
Thus the opposite parties had acted judiciously and within the confines of the provisions of Clause No. 5(iii) (i) and 5(iii) (h) of the policy. Therefore, the Hon’ble commission should dismiss the present complaint as frivolous motivated with malafide only to arm twist the opposite party into reinstating the legally cancelled allotment. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Jotindra Steel and Tubes Ltd. with the prayer to: a) withdraw the impugned notice of cancellation of impugned notice dated 26.05.2022 which had no sanctity in the eyes of law and to restrain the opposite party from allotting the said flat to anyone except the complainant. b) execute builder buyers agreement in respect of above said flat in favour of the complainant and also provide requisite documents for availing housing loan for the repayment of balance sale consideration of the above said flat. c) not to demand any interest or penalty for the period of alleged delay. d) not to raise further demand of balance sale consideration till disbursing the loan amount. e) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . f) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Vikas Kumar Hans, Ex.C-1 – Acknowledgement,, Ex.C-2 – allotment letter, Ex.C-3 – photocopy of cheque dated 24.07.2020, Ex.C-4- receipt,, Ex.C-5 – demand letter,, Ex.C-6 – photocopy of cheque,, Ex.C-7 – receipt,, Ex.C-8 – email .
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.DW1/A – affidavit of Brijesh Kumar Singh, Ex.DW1/1 – resolution, Ex.DW1/2 – notification dated 19th August 2013, Ex.DW1/3 – notification, Ex.DW1/4 – paper cutting, Ex.DW1/5 – email.
6. During the course of arguments, counsel for the opposite party has admitted this fact that the company is still waiting for occupation certificate and opposite party has cancelled the flat in question of the complainant due to non payment as per agreement. As per the evidence led by the complainant and the opposite party, it seems that the opposite party has already cancelled the flat in question of the complainant and the opposite party has called several times to the complainant to refund the principal amount only . On the other hand, counsel for the complainant has argued at length and stated at Bar actually the prices of the flat in question are high now-a-days that‘s why opposite party has cancelled the flat of the complainant. Opposite party is also not ready to refund the money with interest from the respective dates of deposits.
7. After going through the evidence led by the opposite party from Ex.DW1/1 to DW1/4, Opposite party has cancelled the flat in question of the complainant by the policy of the Town and country Planning Department notification dated 05th July 2019 vide Ex.DW1/3. As per the above said policy, opposite party can charge the delayed interest on the delay payment from the complainant. But the opposite party has cancelled the flat in question of the complainant without giving any proper notice to the complainant which shows the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed.
8. Opposite party is directed to :
a) refund the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit.
b) pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment.
c) pay Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 24.02.2023 ( Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
