BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.344 of 2013

                                 Date of institution:          23.08.2013

                                                Date of Decision:           30.03.2015

1.     Avinash Chander Gupta son of Dev Raj Gupta resident of Plot No.9, Ghuman Nagar, behind Amar Banquet Hall, Sirhind Road, Patiala, Punjab.

2.     Krishan Kumar Gupta son of Dev Raj Gupta resident of Plot No.9, Ghuman Nagar, behind Amar Banquet Hall, Sirhind Road, Patiala, Punjab.

                                                                        ……..Complainants

                                        Versus

M/s. JTPL Township Pvt. Ltd. F-82, District Centre, Shivaji Enclave, Near Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 110027 through its MD.

………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.

Present:    Shri HPS Ishar, counsel for the complainants.

Shri Jai Raghunandan, counsel for the OP.

(MRS. MADHU P. SINGH, PRESIDENT)

ORDER

                The case of the complainants is that earlier Mrs. Kavita Jain and Deepak Kumar Jain booked a  250 sq. yard plot with the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’)  which was later on transferred on the name of the complainants vide letter dated 23.10.2008 Ex.C-1.  The complainants paid Rs.15,75,000/- towards price of the plot from 01.12.2005 to 24.11.2009 and also made payment of Rs.4,65,000/- towards EDC charges and Rs.25,000/- as club membership charges. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the OP was to deliver the possession of the plot within 24 months from the date of allotment.  Till date the possession has not been given to the complainant nor the OP bothered to give reply to the written requests of the complainant.  The charges for the EDC taken by the OP from the complainants in the year 2010 but have not been deposited with the PUDA/GMADA and had been utilized by the OP.  It has also charged EDC at higher rate than the rates payable to the authorities.  The OP has also taken Rs.25,000/- as club membership charges but till date it has failed to provide the facility of club.  The possession of the plot has not been handed over to the complainants despite receipt of 90% payment by the OP.  The OP vide letter dated 05.03.2013 informed the complainants that the possession could not be delivered due to litigation on the land which was also further conveyed by the OP vide letter dated 15.07.2013. As per the agreement, the  OP has to charge from the complainant interest @ 24% per annum on the delayed amounts. Similarly the complainant is also entitled to interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of Rs.15,09,984/-  from the OP from 01.08.2011 till the date of actual delivery of possession.  The complainants are also entitled to refund of excess EDC and on interest @ 24% per annum on Rs.25,000/- paid on account of mandatory club charges.

                With these allegations, the complainants have sought directions to the OP to handover them possession of the plot; to pay them interest @ 24% per annum on Rs.20,65,000/- from the date of payment till delivery of possession;  to refund them excess EDC charges with interest thereon @ 24% per annum;  to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of club charges to the tune of Rs.25,000/- till the club service is provided; to pay them compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental  harassment and agony and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.             The OP in the written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that there is no cause of action to file the complaint as the complainants have already been allotted a new plot No.1515 measuring 250 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 15.07.2013 at the same rate at which the booking was done by third party. This Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  On merits, it is pleaded that the OP has made it clear vide letter dated 05.03.2013 the because of some court cases the earlier allotted plot could not be given to them. The OP has denied that it has charged EDC at higher rates than the rates fixed by the Govt.  The OP has earmarked specific area for the purpose of club. The work is in progress and very soon it will be ready for use. The complainants are not entitled for any compensation as giving possession of the plot within 24 months was subject to certain conditions. Thus, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Evidence of the complainants consist of their affidavits Ex.CW1/1  and Ex.CW-1/2 and copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-12.

4.             Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Mandeep Singh, its Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-6.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments filed by them.

6.             Admittedly plot No.1515 measuring 250 sq. yards  has been allotted to the complainants vide allotment letter dated 15.07.2013. Admittedly an amount of Rs.23,02,500/- towards sale consideration of the flat and EDC and other charges has been paid by the complainants to the OP.  Out of this amount the sale consideration is Rs,17,50,000/- whereas the remaining amount is towards EDC and other charges. 

7.             Now the controversy between the parties is regarding excess charging of EDC charges beyond the prescribed rate fixed by GMADA and non provision of club facility.  However, there is no detail of the amounts deposited on account of EDC and other charges from either side.

8.             The OP has contended that the EDC has been charged from the complainant as per the rates fixed by GMADA. On the contrary, the complainant has produced on record the information sought by one of the allottee from GMADA under RTI the perusal of which shows that the OP has charged excess rate of EDC than fixed by GMADA.  As per the complainant the OP has charged Rs.1,860/- per sq. yard as EDC charges whereas as per information received from GMADA Rs.578.51 per sq. yard is chargeable as EDC. Therefore, the OP has charged excess amount of Rs. 1281.49 which the complainant is entitled to refund alongwith interest from the date of payment.  There is no rebuttal evidence by the OP in this regard.  Therefore, on this account we find the act of the OP as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice particularly once it was in the knowledge of the leviable rates issued by the competent authority and still it had charged excess amount on account of EDC. Therefore, the complainant has been successful in proving the case on the basis of RTI information and the excess amount charged by the OP on account of EDC charges.

9.             Now the next question arises whether the OP has not provided the club facility in the complex despite having charged club charges amount from the complainant. As stated above, since there is no detail of the amount paid by the complainant on account of EDC and other charges, we do not know how much amount has been paid by the complainant for club facility. However, it is admitted fact between the parties as per agreement to sell as well as sale deed Ex.C-2 that the OP will be providing club facility to the residents of the complex including the complainant. Perusal of Ex.OP-6 the photographs clearly shows a board indicating site for club house and community centre but no where the building is in place.  Therefore, on this account also the complainant has proved the case of non existence of club house facility. Thus, despite having received the amount under the head other charges by the OP way back in the year 2009 the OP has failed to provide this facility and this act of the OP is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It will be relevant here to mention that a Consumer Complaint No.267 of 2013 titled as Kusum Lata Vs. JTPL decided by this Forum on 02.01.2014, wherein the same issue of lack of club facility was raised by the complainant and this Forum has directed the OPs to complete the club facility within six months of the order. It seems that the status of club facility remains the same i.e. non existence till the date of filing of the present complaint as nothing has come on record to show the existence and functional club house facility. Therefore, on both the counts i.e. charging of excess amount of EDC and non refund of the same to the complainant and further non existence of club house facility is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.

10.           In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following direction to the OP to:

(a)    to refund the excess amount of EDC, if any, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date excess charging till actual payment, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(b)    to provide facility of club to the complainant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(c)    to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

                 Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

March 30, 2015.

                                                                  (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (A.B. Aggarwal)

Member