BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.576 of 2014
Date of institution: 15.09.2014
Date of Decision: 17.03.2015
Raj Kumari resident of House No.1585, ESIC Society, Sector 51-B, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Maya Garden through its Managing Director, Maya Garden City, Ambala – Chandigarh Expressway, Opp. McDonalds, Zirakpur, Punjab.
2. M/s. Barnala Builders & Property Consultant, SCO 1, Opposite Yes Bank, Zirakpur, Patiala Road, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Mrs. Sonia Bansal, Member.
Present: Shri D.S. Soundh, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Ambrish Sharma, counsel for the OPs.
(MRS. MADHU P. SINGH, PRESIDENT)
ORDER
The complainant approached the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) for purchase of 3 BHK Flat having area of 1530 sq. ft. in Maya Garden City, Zirakpur. The flat was to be purchased on the joint name of the complainant and her son Ritesh Khera. The total consideration of the flat was Rs.42,68,700/-. At the time of booking the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.06.2011 vide receipt Ex.C-1. The complainant was allotted Flat No.402 in Block B5 at IVth floor by the OPs vide allotment letter dated 30.06.2011 Ex.C-1/A. The complainant opted payment Plan-B for making payment of the sale consideration. Thereafter complainant paid Rs.5,40,305/- on 29.07.2011 and Rs.2,13,450/- on 30.04.2012 vide receipts Ex.C-2 and C-3. On 19.06.2012 the OPs called the complainant to their office and informed that the complainant can shift to Plan-A from Plan-B where the complainant would get rebate of Rs.3,41,496/- subject to payment of 95% payment in a single go and remaining 5% at the time of physical possession. Then the complainant paid Rs.27,30,088/- to the OPs by taking loan from PNB Housing Finance Limited on interest of 10.5%. The complainant also made payment of Rs.73,500/- alongwith Rs.2,272/- as service tax to the OPs vide receipt Ex.C-7. As per Clause-5 of the agreement to sell Ex.C-5 the physical possession of the flat was to be given to the complainant on 30.11.2014. The complainant astonished to receive letter dated 25.11.2013 Ex.C-8 from the OPs vide which Rs.73,500/- alongwith interest of Rs.2,99,244/- were demanded from him. The complainant visited the OPs and the officials of the OPs informed that payment of Rs.73,500/- was left out through an over sight out of 9.5% of the total settlement amount. Thus the complainant made payment of Rs.75,772/- to Mr. Dinesh Pathania vide receipt Ex.C-9. Then Mr. Dinesh Pathania, informed the complainant that there is no dues left on the part of the complainant. Thereafter the OPs on number of times demanded the interest charges and every time the complainant explained the factual position to the OPs. A lot of correspondence exchanged between the complainant and the OPs but inspite of this the OPs are demanding Rs.73,500/- and Rs.3,00,066/-.
With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OPs to withdraw the demand notice dated 25.11.2013 and 12.08.2014 of Rs.73,500/- and Rs.3,00,066/- and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. OP No.2 in the written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The flat has been jointly allotted in the name of first applicant Ritesh Khera and the complainant but Ritesh Khera has not been impleaded as complainant. OP No.1 has been wrongly impleaded as there is no firm is in existence under the name and style of M/s. Maya Garden at Ambala. The complainant has indulged in Supresso Veri and Sugestio Falsi and has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The present complaint has been filed with malafide intention. In the affidavit filed with the complaint, there are many false facts which amount to criminal act for which the complainant is liable to be prosecuted under relevant provisions of IPC and Cr.P.C. On merits, it is pleaded that at the time of change of payment plan, the complainant got discount of 8% on total cost of the flat. Due to change of payment plan, the account ledger of the flat in question could not be upgraded within time and the flat in question was standing in Plan-B. Due to inadvertent mistake the entire cost of the flat and interest and other charges calculated in wrong manner. As a result wrong demand letters were issued to the complainant. OP No.2 telephonically apologized with Mr. Ritesh Khera. OP No.2 also assured for final settlement of the accounts at the time of possession. As on today balance 5% cost of the flat + Rs.1,51,470/- as maintenance charges + Rs.6,068/- as service tax + Rs.43,979/- as interest due against the complainant. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. Learned counsel for the OPs made statement on 11.12.2014 that he does not want to file any written statement on behalf of OP No.1.
4. Evidence of the complainant consists of her affidavits Ex.CW1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2 and copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-20.
5. Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Sandeep Bansal, its Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-5.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant.
7. The dispute in the present complaint is regarding demand notice dated 25.11.2013 Ex.C-8 vide which the complainant is desired to pay Rs. 73,500/- on account of service tax and Rs.2,99,244/- on account of interest on delayed payment. As per the complainant no interest is leviable against her on account of delayed payment as she has never defaulted in making payment as per schedule.
8. It is admitted that the complainant earlier opted for Plan-B i.e. the construction linked plan for making the payments of agreed sale consideration and under that plan she has deposited Rs.5,40,305/- on 29.07.2011 and Rs.2,13,450/- on 30.04.2012 vide receipts Ex.C-2 and C-3. Therefore, on 19.06.2012 she has shifted from Plan-B to Plan-A i.e. Down Payment Plan. This factum has been clearly incorporated in the duly executed agreement to sell Ex.C-5. Thereafter, the complainant raised a loan from the bank and paid Rs.27,30,088/- to the OPs. As per demand letter Ex.C-8 out of the total demanded amount of Rs.3,75,016/-, the complainant has paid Rs.75,722/- against due receipt dated 07.12.2013 Ex.C-9. The complainant has not produced any document to show the payment of balance amount of Rs.2,99,244/- as per demand letter Ex.C-8 on account of due towards interest. Since the complainant failed to deposit the demanded amount the OPs vide demand letter dated 12.08.2014 Ex.C-20 raised another demand of Rs.3,00,066/- due towards interest. The complainant has failed to show whether the demand of interest on delayed payment is against the agreed terms between the parties governing the transaction. Therefore, we do not find anything wrong or amiss on the part of the OPs for raising the demand.
9. As per complainant himself the cut off date for giving of physical possession of the flat in question is 30.11.2014 and therefore, on this account the OPs are not defaulter as the complainant has failed to pay the demanded amount vide Ex.C-20.
10. During the course of proceedings, an effort was made to resolve the issue amicably and against the demanded amount of Rs.3,00,066/- the OPs have offered waiver of the interest amount substantially by reducing it to Rs.26,000/- but the said offer was not accepted by the complainant.
11. Therefore, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complainant is at liberty to take over the possession of the flat in question after paying the due demanded amount alongwith interest upto date, if any. Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
March 17, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Mrs. Sonia Bansal)
Member
