Haryana

Sonipat

CC/237/2015

Vinod Kumar S/o Daulat Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Omaxe Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Sharma

10 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                                Complaint No.237 of 2015

                                Instituted on:27.07.2015

                                Date of order:10.05.2016

 

Vinod Kumar Jain son of Sh. Daulat Ram, r/o 29/205, Dev Nagar, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.M/s Omaxe Ltd., office at 7 Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 through its Mananging Director Rohtash Goel.

2.Mukesh Goel, GM Commercial and Project Incharge, Omaxe City, Sonepat, Omaxe Ltd., 7 Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

3.Rohtash Goel, Managing Director, Omaxe Ltd., office at 7 Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

 

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Naresh Sharma Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Manan Batra Adv. for respondents.

          

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

 

 

O R D E R

 

          The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that

earlier the complainant was endorsed with priority of plot no.167 in his favour by the respondent vide letter dated 10.11.2005 and it was a PLC location.  Later-on, he was allotted plot no.164 measuring 300 Sq. yards in block A Omaxe City, Sonepat.  He was again allotted plot no.1200 measuring 299 sq. yards in Block D (which was not a PLC) plot instead of plot no.164 vide letter dated 10.7.2006. Thereafter the complainant was again allotted plot no.531 in block B measuring 299 sq. yards and then plot no.530A in block B.  But possession of none of these plots was ever offered to the complainant.  Later on the respondent offered the plot no.809 to be allotted in the name of the complainant which was accepted by the complainant on unchanged terms and conditions of earlier allotment of plot.   The plot buyer agreement of plot no.809 measuring 267 sq. yards was executed on 22.2.2013. The respondents intimated regarding installments due mentioning the final costs of plot as Rs.1520405/- and the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.256269/- as due amount till date within 15 days which was deposited by the complainant on 16.2.2013 prior to the agreement.  But the respondent has wrongly added Rs.134550/- in the statement of account towards PLC which were specifically excluded from cost at the time of settlement qua plot no.800. A sum of Rs.40903/- was also shown as EEDC and IDC charges which the complainant is also not liable to pay to the respondents.   A sum of Rs.22866/- was also demanded by the respondents as interest on account of delayed remittance whereas the complainant never defaulted in payment of installment. The complainant has booked the plot with the respondents about 10 years back and the respondents have violated their terms and conditions of handing over the possession within 18 months of booking and thus, the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50/- per sq. yards on 300 sq. yards of plot from 5.5.2006 till the date of actual possession of the plot.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint before this Forum.

2.        The respondents in their written statement has submitted that the present complaint is solely based on agreement dated 20.2.2013 and any facts prior to this agreement will not create any substantive right or cast an obligation upon the parties. The agreement dated 20.2.2013 was entered between the parties on different terms and conditions. The total cost of the plot no.809 is Rs.1654955/- excluding interest on account of delayed remittance.  The total balance due on behalf of the complainant towards the respondent no.1 till 20.8.2014 is Rs.373423/-. The respondents have denied the fact that the PLC was excluded from cost at the time of entering into the said agreement.  Since the said plot of the complainant is located on a 24 meter wide road, which comes under the segment of preferential location and thus, PLC charges are applicable to the complainant and PLC charges has been explicitly laid down in clause 1 of the agreement.  The complainant is also liable to pay EEDC and IDC charges explicitly mentioned in clause 11 of the agreement dated 20.2.2013.  The change in plot, if any was done only at the instance and request of the complainant.  The respondents have never violated its own terms of handing over possession within 18 months.   On every occasion and instance the complainant himself has defaulted in making the payments.  The complainant was never interested in buying the said plot.  The respondents never failed to hand over the possession of the complainant.   There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondents and the complainant is not entitled to get any kind of relief in view of the present complaint against the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that earlier the complainant was endorsed with priority of plot no.167 in his favour by the respondent vide letter dated 10.11.2005 and it was a PLC location.  Later-on, he was allotted plot no.164 measuring 300 Sq. yards in block A Omaxe City, Sonepat.  He was again allotted plot no.1200 measuring 299 sq. yards in Block D (which was not a PLC) plot instead of plot no.164 vide letter dated 10.7.2006. Thereafter the complainant was again allotted plot no.531 in block B measuring 299 sq. yards and then plot no.530A in block B.  But possession of none of these plots was ever offered to the complainant.  Later on the respondent offered the plot no.809 to be allotted in the name of the complainant which was accepted by the complainant on unchanged terms and conditions of earlier allotment of plot.   The plot buyer agreement of plot no.809 measuring 267 sq. yards was executed on 22.2.2013. The respondents intimated regarding installments due mentioning the final costs of plot as Rs.1520405/- and the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.256269/- as due amount till date within 15 days which was deposited by the complainant on 16.2.2013 prior to the agreement.  But the respondent has wrongly added Rs.134550/- in the statement of account towards PLC which were specifically excluded from cost at the time of settlement qua plot no.809. A sum of Rs.40903/- was also shown as EEDC and IDC charges which the complainant is also not liable to pay to the respondents.   A sum of Rs.22866/- was also demanded by the respondents as interest on account of delayed remittance whereas the complainant never defaulted in payment of installment. The complainant has booked the plot with the respondents about 10 years back and the respondents have violated their terms and conditions of handing over the possession within 18 months of booking and thus, the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50/- per sq. yards on 300 sq. yards of plot from 5.5.2006 till the date of actual possession of the plot. 

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the present complaint is solely based on agreement dated 20.2.2013 and any facts prior to this agreement will not create any substantive right or cast an obligation upon the parties. The agreement dated 20.2.2013 was entered between the parties on different terms and conditions. The total cost of the plot no.809 is Rs.1654955/- excluding interest on account of delayed remittance.  The total balance due on behalf of the complainant towards the respondent no.1 till 20.8.2014 is Rs.373423/-. The respondents have denied the fact that the PLC was excluded from cost at the time of entering into the said agreement.  Since the said plot of the complainant is located on a 24 meter wide road, which comes under the segment of preferential location and thus, PLC charges are applicable to the complainant and PLC charges has been explicitly laid down in clause 1 of the agreement.  The complainant is also liable to pay EEDC and IDC charges explicitly mentioned in clause 11 of the agreement dated 20.2.2013.  The change in plot, if any was done only at the instance and request of the complainant.  The respondents have never violated its own terms of handing over possession within 18 months.   On every occasion and instance the complainant himself has defaulted in making the payments.  The complainant was never interested in buying the said plot.  The respondents never failed to hand over the possession of the complainant.   There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondents and the complainant is not entitled to get any kind of relief in view of the present complaint against the respondents.

5.        In the present complaint, the complainant has alleged that the complainant was allotted plot no.164 measuring 300 Sq. yards in block no.A, Omaxe City, Sonepat. But after perusal of the entire case file, not even a single document with regard to allotment of plot no.164 as mentioned above, is found.

          However, we find the respondents to be deficient in their services, because they frequently changed the allotment of the plots one after the another, but they failed to hand over the physical possession of any plot in favour of the complainant.  Even the plot buyer agreement in respect of plot no.809 measuring 267 sq. yards was executed in between the parties on 20.2.2013.

          The main contention of the complainant is that the respondents have demanded again the amount of PLC. We have perused the statement of account dated 7.7.2014, whereby the amount of Rs.1,34,550/- has been demanded as PLC and Rs.22866/- has been demanded as interest on account of delayed remittance.

          On the contrary, the receipt Ex.C4 shows that the complainant has paid an amount on account of PLC and part payment vide receipt dated 15.12.2005.  In our view, when the respondents have already received the PLC charges from the complainant, then how they can again demand the said amount under the same head.  In our view, the demand of PLC charges and interest on delayed payment i.e. Rs.1,34,550/- and Rs.22866/- is wrong and illegal and the complainant is not liable to pay the same to the respondents.

          First agreement was executed in between the parties on 15.4.2009 and the execution of the second agreement on 20.2.2013, the respondents have failed to hand over the physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant.

          In our view, definitely the complainant is entitled to get some suitable compensation on account of interest from the respondents. Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to pay lumpsum Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.four lacs) to the complainant as compensation/interest on account of utilizing the huge amount of the complainant without providing him any services.

 

          As far as the demand of respondents for Rs.3,69,322/- is concerned, the respondents are directed to deduct Rs.134550/- and Rs.22866/- from this amount and to accept the balance amount from the complainant without any interest. 

 

          The respondents are further directed to hand over the physical possession of the plot no.809 in Block F, Omaxe City, Sonepat to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, after expiry of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, the respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 09% per annum on the net basic sale price of Rs.955305/- as mentioned in Ex.C27 till the delivery of the physical possession to the complainant.

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

 

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

 

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member)            (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                       DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:  10.05.2016