Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/99/2015

Vinod Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. DLF Universal Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sharad Aggarwal

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/99/2015
Date of Institution	:	13/02/2015
Date of Decision	:	01/12/2015

 

 

Vinod Goel s/o Sh. Ved Parkash Goel r/o Flat No.1223, ATS Golf Meadows Prelude, Barwala Road, Dera Bassi.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s DLF Universal Limited, SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Party

 

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                               

                                               

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sharad Aggarwal, Counsel for complainant
		Sh. Avinit Avasthi, Counsel for OP

                       

                 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Vinod Goel, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s DLF Universal Limited, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that he alongwith his father Sh. Ved Parkash Goel had applied for allotment of a 350 sq. yard plot in the project of the OP namely Hyde Park Estate at New Chandigarh. Accordingly, they were allotted plot No.317, Block E, Pocket R-2 at the basic price of Rs.89,24,934.72 and extra preferential location charges of Rs.9,80,051.36 were also to be paid, being a park facing plot.  Subsequently, on 4.10.2013 Sh. Ved Parkash Goel transferred his rights in favour of the complainant and the said change was also incorporated in the records of the OP. The complainant has averred that till 20.5.2011 he had paid an amount of Rs.90,19,810/- vide separate installments.

                According to the complainant, in the month of September 2013, when he visited the plot he was shocked to see that it was not park facing. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OP and requested to allot some other park facing plot of same size, but, it flatly refused to adhere to his grievance. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 25.6.2014 and in response the OP wrote that plot in question was a park facing plot. The complainant has contended that he time and again approached the OP for redressal of his grievance, but, it not only refused to refund the amount so deposited as PLC charges, but, also refused to allot him any alternative plot.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 

2.         In its written reply, OP has taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complainant is investor who had applied for allotment in the project in order to obtain profit; that since the present dispute arises out of agreement, therefore, the same may be referred to arbitration in accordance with Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.  It has been averred that as per the application for allotment, the total price of the plot in question was Rs.99,05,053.76 and the same was inclusive of Preferential Location Charges (PLC) of Rs.9,80,058.05 and after rebate the total price was Rs.96,68,758/-.  It has been stated that the complainant has wrongly alleged that the plot in question is not a park facing plot.  It has been contended that the plot in question is still a park facing plot and, therefore, the preferential location charges have been rightfully charged by the OP. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         In his replication, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated his own. It has been contended that the complainant had bought the residential plot for his personal needs and not for investment purpose.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have appraised the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both sides and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         The first objection raised by the OP is that the complainant is an investor who had applied for allotment in the project in order to obtain profits out of real estate speculation, therefore, he does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, we are not impressed with the above contention. The complainant has specifically pleaded in his replication that he had bought the said residential plot for his personal needs and not for investment purpose. It is significant to note that the OP has not produced any documentary evidence to this effect that the complainant, Sh. Vinod Goel or his father, Sh. Ved Parkash Goel are property dealers and they have the history of buying plots and selling them in order to obtain profits.  Since the complaint alongwith his father purchased the plot No.317, Block E, Pocket R-2 from the OP for the basic price of Rs.89,24,934.72 and the extra preferential charges @ Rs.9,80,000/-, and thereafter his father transferred his rights in favour of the complainant and the change was also incorporated in the records of the OP, therefore, the complainant clearly falls under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. 
7.         The next objection raised by the OP is to the effect that as per clause 38 of the application, it was mutually agreed between the parties that all disputes arising out of the agreement shall be settled amicably, failing which they shall be referred to arbitration.  It has been contended by the learned counsel for the OP that as the present dispute arises out of the agreement, which the arbitration clause covers, therefore, the matter may be referred to arbitration in accordance with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the above contention of the learned counsel for the OP is also devoid of any force because the remedy provided to the consumer under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy.  Hence, it is immaterial if the complainant instead of getting the dispute referred to the arbitrator has filed the present complaint.
8.         The central point of dispute between the parties relates to the payment of Rs.9,80,051.36 relating to the preferential location charges as the plot was alleged to be a park facing plot. The contention of the OP is that at present the aforesaid plot No.317 is still a park facing plot. The learned counsel for the OP has not disputed the site plan (Annexure C-3) produced by the complainant and has argued that even if the plot of the complainant is partially facing park, still preferential location charges are liable to be paid by the complainant. The learned counsel for the OP has further argued that as per clause 31 of the plot buyer’s agreement (Annexure C-2), the lay out plan sanctioned by the competent authority may be changed from time to time and any changes/modifications may be made by the competent authority in the lay out plan in the future and it shall automatically supersede the present approved lay out plan.  Accordingly, it has been contended that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
9.         We have carefully considered the above arguments of the learned counsel for the OP, but, we are not impressed with the same. As per the original lay out plan, plot No.317 allotted to the complainant was fully/completely facing park.  However, when the plot was actually allotted, as per description in the site plan (Annexure C-3), less than half of its front portion is not facing the park. No doubt, in accordance with condition No.31 of the plot buyer’s agreement, the lay out plan sanctioned by the competent authority could be changed by the competent authority and/or by the company, but, it does not mean that after taking the preferential location charges to the tune of Rs.9,80,051.36, the OP could change the location of the plot allotted to the complainant to such an extent that its complete frontage shall not be facing park.  It is pertinent to note that though the complainant is ready for an alternative park facing plot also, but, the OP is not ready to accede to this request even. We are not impressed with this contention that even if the plot in question is partially park facing, nevertheless the complainant is bound to pay the full preferential location charges.  We are of the opinion that the conduct of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice.  However, the ends of justice would be met if the OP is directed to charge proportionate amount of the front area of plot No.317 of the complainant facing park.  In other words, the OP is bound to refund the preferential location charges amount of front area which is not facing park. 
10.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed. The OP is directed :-

(i)     To refund the amount  of preferential location charges to the complainant, after adjusting the proportionate amount of the area which is facing park, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till realization.

(ii)    To also pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for the harassment, mental agony and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

(iii)   To further pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

11.         This order be complied with by OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
01.12.2015		[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg		Member	President