Haryana

StateCommission

CC/758/2017

MRS. SHUCHI VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TANEJA DEVELOPERS AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

DINESH SAIN

09 Feb 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:15.11.2017

                Date of final hearing:30.01.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement:09.02.2024

 

Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Mrs. Suchi Vasan daughter of Shri Man Mohan Khurana, R/o House No.15-B, Green Park, Tehsil Town, Panipat.

                                                .….Complainant.

Through counsel Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate

Versus

 

1.      M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Panipat Ltd., having its office at TDI City, Panipat through its Regional Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2.      M/s TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd., having its registered office at UG Floor, Vandana Building, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Formerly known as M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Panipat Ltd.) through its Managing Director/Director.

….Opposite parties.

Through counsel Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, Advocate

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. R.K. Saini, counsel for the complainant.

Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, counsel for opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

                    The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that the opposite parties (“OPs”) floated a residential housing project under the name & style “TDI City” situated at Panipat (Haryana). Complainant applied for a residential plot bearing No.23, Block-F, measuring 250 sq. yds. in the abovementioned project through application dated 11.10.2012. Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 23.10.2012. Basic sale price of the said plot was Rs.10,000/- per sq. yd. and total sale price was Rs.25,00,000/- exclusive of EDC and IDC and total sale price after including EDC, IDC comes to Rs.28,95,750/-. Complainant followed the payment plan ‘B’ and paid 90% of the total basic sale price and 100% of EDC and IDC charges before offering the possession of plot and balance 10% payment with costs of additional area and EDC, IDC on it. Thereafter, vide letter dated 15.02.2014, OPs have made an offer of possession in which schedule for payment of EDC has also been drawn. According to this schedule, entire payment of EDC was to be paid within 12 months of booking, meaning thereby the complainant had already paid the entire amount of external development charges to the OPs. It was further alleged that vide this very letter dated 15.02.2014, OPs demanded an amount of Rs.1,49,318/- on account of enhancement in external development charges, misc. expenses of Rs.10,000/-, club membership charges (CMC) of Rs.75,000/-, Interest Free Maintenance Security (SEC) of Rs.20,000/- and UTC, which was wrong and illegal. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs on receiving of possession letter and handed over the representation, but all in vain. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for waive/withdraw the demand of EDC, CMC, SEC and ME as claimed in letter dated 15.02.2014; to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. on account of mental harassment, pain and agony; to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the OPs, upon which OPs appeared and filed their written version. The OPs in their written version submitted that the OPs floated a housing scheme under the name & style “ TDI City” at Panipat and invited applications. Complainant applied for registration of a residential plot bearing No.23, Block-F, measuring 250 sq. yards. in the said project  and the same was allotted to complainant vide agreement dated 23.10.2012. It was further submitted that basic sale price of said plot was Rs.10,000/- per sq. yd. which is exclusive of external development charges (EDC) or any other charges levied/or leviable by the state or any other competent authority including but not limited to IDC, which is payable by the purchaser in addition to the basic sale price of the plot. Possession of the plot was offered vide letter dated 15.02.2014 along with final statement of account, in which outstanding detailed balance amount was duly mentioned. It was further submitted that the demanded amount of EDC does not include the amount of EDC enhanced by the state government vide notification dated 14.07.2011. However, it is specifically mentioned in clause 2.2 of the agreement that the purchaser agree, confirm and agree to pay any variation in the total sale consideration due to changes in EDC & IDC or any other charges demanded by the State Government or any statutory authority and the amount as apportioned by the seller shall be final and binding on the purchaser. It was further submitted that OPs were constructing the club and they have rightly and legally raised the demand and complainant is liable to make the payment of the same. Moreover, the misc. charges raised by the OPs  are for the expenses to be incurred for the registration of sale deed in favour of complainant and the complainant is liable to pay the interest free security regarding maintenance and as per clause 10 & 11 of the agreement the agreed price of plot does not include the periodic maintenance and upkeep costs for which the purchaser agrees to enter into a separate maintenance agreement with the maintenance agency so appointed by the seller for the said purpose. Other allegations levelled in the complaint are denied and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Further, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, complainant (Ms. Suchi Vasan) has tendered into evidence her affidavit as Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed her evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr. Ankit Arora (Authorized Representative) as Ex.RA and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate, learned counsel for complainant as well as Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, Advocate, learned counsel for OPs. With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint have been properly perused and examined.

6.                As per the basic averment raised in the complaint and including the contentions put forth by the learned counsel, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to waive/withdraw the demanded charges of EDC, CMC, SEC and Misc. charges as claimed in letter dated 15.02.2014; to get Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. on account of mental agony and deficiency in service on the part of OPs and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses from OPs or not? 

7.                While unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant that the OPs floated a residential housing project under the name & style “TDI City” situated at Panipat (Haryana) and complainant applied for a residential plot bearing No.23, Block-F, measuring 250 sq. yds. in the abovementioned project through application dated 11.10.2012. Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the complainant and OPs on 23.10.2012. He further argued that the basic sale price of the said plot was Rs.10,000/- per sq. yds. and total sale price was Rs.25,00,000/- exclusive of EDC and IDC and total sale price after including EDC, IDC comes to Rs.28,95,750/-. Complainant followed the payment plan and paid 90% of the total basic sale price and 100% of EDC and IDC charges before the offer of possession of plot and made balance 10% payment with costs of additional area and EDC, IDC on it. Thereafter, vide letter dated 15.02.2014, OPs have made an offer of possession in which schedule for payment of EDC has also been drawn. He further argued that according to this schedule, entire payment of EDC was to be paid within 12 months of booking, meaning thereby the complainant had already paid the entire amount of external development charges to the OPs. He further argued that vide this very letter dated 15.02.2014, OPs demanded an amount of Rs.1,49,318/- on account of enhancement in external development charges, misc. expenses of Rs.10,000/-, club membership charges (CMC) of Rs.75,000/-, Interest Free Maintenance Security (SEC) of Rs.20,000/- and UTC, which was wrong and illegal.

8.                On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, Advocate, learned counsel for OPs has argued that the OPs floated a housing scheme under the name & style “TDI City” at Panipat and invited applications. Complainant applied for registration of a residential plot bearing No.23, Block-F, measuring 250 sq. yards in the said project  and the same was allotted to complainant vide agreement dated 23.10.2012. He further argued that basic sale price of said plot was Rs.10,000/- per sq. yd. which is exclusive of external development charges (EDC) or any other charges levied/or leviable by the state or any other competent authority including but not limited to IDC, which is payable by the purchaser in addition to the basic sale price of the plot. Possession of the plot was offered vide letter dated 15.02.2014 along with final statement of account, in which outstanding detailed balance amount was duly mentioned. He further argued that the demanded amount of EDC does not include the amount of EDC enhanced by the state government vide notification dated 14.07.2011. He further argued that  as per clause 2.2 of the agreement that the purchaser agree, confirm and agree to pay any variation in the total sale consideration due to changes in EDC & IDC or any other charges demanded by the State Government or any statutory authority and the amount as apportioned by the seller shall be final and binding on the purchaser. He further argued that OPs were constructing the club and they have rightly and legally raised the demand and complainant is liable to make the payment of the same. Moreover, the misc. charges raised by the OPs were for the expenses to be incurred for the registration of sale deed in favour of complainant and the complainant is liable to pay the interest free security regarding maintenance and as per clause 10 & 11 of the agreement the agreed price of plot does not include the periodic maintenance and upkeep costs for which the purchaser agrees to enter into a separate maintenance agreement with the maintenance agency so appointed by the seller for the said purpose. Finally, he argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9.                In view of the above submissions and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is proved that upon floating a housing project under the name & style “TDI City” situated at Panipat by the OPs, a plot bearing No.23, Block-F, measuring 250 sq. yds. was booked by the complainant in the abovementioned project through application dated 11.10.2012. It is also admitted that the Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 23.10.2012. It is also not disputed that the Basic sale price of the said plot was Rs.10,000/- per sq. yds. and total sale price was Rs.25,00,000/- exclusive of EDC and IDC and total sale price after including EDC, IDC comes to Rs.28,95,750/-. It is also not disputed that vide letter dated 15.02.2014, OPs have made an offer of possession in which schedule for payment of EDC has also been drawn.

10.              The plea regarding waiving/withdraw of the demanded charges of EDC, EMC, SEC and ME as claimed by the OPs vide letter dated 15.02.2014 was taken by learned counsel for complainant during the course of arguments. However, it is established from the records, that the demanded amount of EDC did not include the amount of EDC enhanced by the state government vide notification dated 14.07.2011. Moreover, it is specifically mentioned in clause 2.2 of the agreement that the purchaser agree, confirm and agree to pay any variation in the total sale consideration due to changes in EDC & IDC or any other charges demanded by the State Government or any statutory authority and the amount as apportioned by the seller shall be final and binding on the purchaser and this agreement was duly signed by the complainant. As per the OPs, they were constructing the club and they have rightly and legally raised the demand and complainant is liable to make the payment of the same. Apart from this, the misc. charges raised by the OPs were for the expenses to be incurred for the registration of sale deed in favour of complainant and the complainant is liable to pay the interest free security regarding maintenance and as per clause 10 & 11 of the agreement the agreed price of plot does not include the periodic maintenance and upkeep costs for which the purchaser agrees to enter into a separate maintenance agreement with the maintenance agency so appointed by the seller for the said purpose.

11.              As far as the question of compensation is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that complainants are in possession of plot in question for which they paid the amount to OPs and as such, the question is answered in the affirmative.

12.              In the light of the above observation and discussion, as well as in considered view of this Commission, present complaint is devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed.

13.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

14.              Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

15.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 09^th February, 2024

 

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III