BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.276 of 2014
Date of institution: 21.04.2014
Date of Decision: 30.03.2015
1. Abhishek Gautam s/o Ram Nath Gautam.
2. Charan Pal Kaur Bagga w/o Abhishek Gautam
Both residents of House No.657-B, JTPL City, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
……..Complainants
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 complainants.
Shri Jai Raghunandan, counsel for the OP.
(MRS. MADHU P. SINGH, PRESIDENT)
ORDER
The case of the complainants is that they entered into agreement with the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) for purchase of two flat Nos. 657-B and 657-C in JTPL Mohali under subvention scheme. Under this scheme, the concerned person need not to pay any pre-EMIs till fixed period or possession. The OP assured that it has arrangements with DHFCL and the loan would be approved. Allotment letter of Flat No.657-C is Ex.C-1. After some time the OP informed the complainants that their subvention plan could not get approval of bank and issued letter dated 13.10.2010 Ex.C-2 for changing the allotment from subvention plan to construction link plan and also asked the complainants to deposit Rs.9,45,900/- within the stipulated period otherwise the allotment would be cancelled. Payment of Rs.9,45,900/- was made by the complainants vide cheque No.173774. After receiving the full payment, the possession certificate dated 10.03.2012 Ex.C-4 was issued by the OP. On coming to know about charging of excess interest, the complainants approached the OP for refund of the excess interest but the OP failed to give any satisfactory reply. Delay in making the payment is not at the part of the complainant but it was due to option of subvention scheme as advised/assured by the OP. The rate of charging of interest @ 24% is not part of the agreement between the parties. At the time of allotment, EDC @ Rs.1860/- per sq. yard was charged from the complainants whereas from the information gathered by one Megh Raj under RTI Ex.C-7 the complainants were 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 Ex.C-6 issued by Department of Housing and Urban Development, the EDC 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 complainants. 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 complainants are 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 complainants have sought directions to the OP to refund them Rs.1,81,958/- with interest @ 24% per annum charged as interest on delayed payment; to refund them 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 them compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. The OP in the written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the booking of flat No.657-C was made by the complainants vide application dated 12.03.2010 and they were informed to get the sale deed registered in their names vide letter dated 28.12.2011. The complaint is barred by limitation as they were informed to get the sale deed registered on 28.12.2011. The complainants are residing in the flat for the last two years before registration of sale deed. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainants have agreed to comply with all the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. The OP has denied that there was any sort of guarantee from it to get subvention loan approved for every individual. As per terms of the application, it was the responsibility of the buyer to raise loan under any scheme or pay from his own pocket. On the request of the complainants the payment plan was changed to construction linked. If the complainants were not in a position to purchase the flat, they could have cancelled it. 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 complainants consist of their affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-7.
4. Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Mandeep Singh, its Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-7.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments filed by them.
6. Admittedly flat No.657-C has been allotted to the complainants. Admittedly sale deed of the flat has been executed on 28.12.2011 in favour of the complainants by the OP after receipt of sale consideration and EDC and other charges from the complainants.
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 complainants as per the rates fixed by GMADA. On the contrary, the complainants have 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 complainants 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 complainants are 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 complainants have been successful in proving the case on the basis of RTI information and the excess amount charged by the OP on account of EDC charges.
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 complainants. As stated above, since there is no detail of the amount paid by the complainants on account of EDC and other charges, we do not know how much amount has been paid by the complainants for club facility. However, it is admitted fact between the parties that the OP will be providing club facility to the residents of the complex including the complainants. Perusal of Ex.OP-7 the photograph 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 complainants have proved the case of non existence of club house facility. Thus, despite having received the amount under the head other charges by the OP, 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 of club house facility. Therefore, on both the counts i.e. charging of excess amount of EDC and non refund of the same to the complainants 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 complainants deserve 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 complainants within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(c) to pay to the complainants 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
