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

                                  Consumer Complaint No.648 of 2013

                                 Date of institution:          20.12.2013

                                                Date of Decision:           30.03.2015

Sandeep Kapoor son of Tirath Ram Kapoor, H.No.607-A, JTPL City, Mohali.

                                                                        ……..Complainant

                                        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 complainant.

Shri Jai Raghunandan, counsel for the OP.

(MRS. MADHU P. SINGH, PRESIDENT)

ORDER

                The case of the complainant is that he was allotted Flat No.607-A measuring 1087 sq. yard in JTPL City Mohali by the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’). At the time of allotment, EDC @ Rs.1860/- per sq. yard was charged from the complainant. Besides, this Rs.25,000/- were also charged as club membership charges.  The sale deed (Ex.C-2) of the flat in question  was executed by the OP in favour of the complainant on 10.04.2012.  The OP has charged EDC charges @ Rs.1860/- per sq. yard whereas from the information gathered by one Megh Raj under RTI Ex.C-3 the complainant was to pay EDC charges of Rs.34,711/- to the OP but actually an amount of Rs.1,05,600/- has been charged by the OP towards EDC charges. As per letter dated 10.01.2006 issued by Department of Housing and Urban Development, the ED charges were to be paid before launch of the project which was to be borne by the OP but the OP has fraudulently charged these charges from the complainant.  The complainants have also paid to the OP Rs.25,000/- towards mandatory club charges but till date it has failed to provide the facility of club. The OP has charged 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.70,889/- charged in excess on account of EDC and on Rs.25,000/- paid on account of mandatory club charges.

                With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OP to refund him excess amount of EDC to the tune of Rs.70,889/- alongwith interest @ 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 him compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental  harassment and agony and Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.             The OP in the written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is barred by limitation as the sale deed was registered on 10.04.2012.    This Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the total consideration of the flat is Rs.24,36,600/-. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has agreed to comply all the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties.  The OP has not recovered any excess EDC than applicable rates. The EDC is levied by GMADA and the same is recovered from the intending purchasers. The facility of club is in operational and some members are availing the services of the club. 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 complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-3.

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-5.

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

6.             Admittedly flat No.607-A has been allotted to the complainant. Admittedly sale deed of the flat has been executed on 10.04.2012 and an amount of Rs.25,83,226/- towards sale consideration of the flat and EDC and other charges has been paid by the complainant to the OP.  Out of this amount the sale consideration is Rs.24,00,000/- whereas the remaining amount is towards EDC and other charges. 

7.             Now the controversy between the parties is regarding excess charging of EDC 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.

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-5 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 2012 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 of 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