Haryana

Sonipat

CC/39/2015

MAHENDER SINGH RATHEE S/O CHANDGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

OMAXE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

K.K. MALIK

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.39 of 2015

                                Instituted on:11.02.2015

                                Date of order:26.11.2015

 

Mahender Singh Rathee son of Chandgi, r/o 28/236, West Ram Nagar, Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.  

Versus

 

Omaxe Ltd.  7 Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-09 through its Managing Director.

                                                     …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. KK Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. H.O. Sharma, Adv. for respondent. 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he has booked two plots no.2403 measuring 269.1 sq. yards vide3 document/ID no.OL/SNP/1416and another plot bearing no.2397 measuring 193.75 sq. yards vide document/ID NO.1417 situated in Omaxe City, Sonepat and as per the terms and conditions, the respondent has to deliver the possession of the plots within six months from the date of allotment.   But till date, the respondent has not delivered the possession of the plot to the complainant.  It is further submitted that on 10.12.2014, the respondent issued a letter to the complainant for getting the sale/conveyance deed registered in his favour by paying the requisite stamp duty and they also wrongly added the registration fee of Rs.10200/- and legal fee of Rs.11236/- for each plot.  The stamp paper required for registration are to be purchased by the complainant at the net basic sale price of Rs.10,06,434/- and Rs.7,24,625/- respectively, but the respondent is demanding the stamp duty on additional charges also.  Thus, the complainant has alleged the letter dated 10.12.2014 to be wrong and illegal and the same has unnecessarily caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant has booked the plot in Omaxe City, Sonepat and in Septemebr, 2011, buyer agreement was executed in between the complainant and the respondent.  Thereafter, offer of possession was issued to the complainant with regard to both the plots on 1.11.2014 and the complainant made the payment of possession amount on 15.12.2014. The amount of Rs.3,99,966/- was due towards the complainant against plot no.2403 and Rs.276597/- was due against plot no.2397.  The cheque no.810627 dated 19.3.2012 issued by the complainant for Rs.2 lacs was dishonoured by the bankers of the complainant.   Due to delay, interest of Rs.12166/- was levied against plot no.2397 and interest of Rs.195613/- was accrued against plot no.2403.  The respondent has issued letter to the complainant on 10.12.2014 and asked him to get registered the deed of conveyance of the plots in question after paying the stamp duty amount of Rs.61800/- in plot no.2397 and amount of Rs.85100/- in plot no.2403, but the complainant insisted to get the deed of conveyance on the basis of basic sale price and not on the total cost of the plot.   The letter dated 10.12.2014 is legal and was issued to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent while doing so and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by 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 the respondent in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement has issued the letter dated 10.12.2014 which is wrong, illegal and not binding on the rights of the complainant.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant has booked the plot in Omaxe City, Sonepat and in Septemebr, 2011, buyer agreement was executed in between the complainant and the respondent.  Thereafter, offer of possession was issued to the complainant with regard to both the plots on 1.11.2014 and the complainant made the payment of possession amount on 15.12.2014. The amount of Rs.3,99,966/- was due towards the complainant against plot no.2403 and Rs.276597/- was due against plot no.2397.  The cheque no.810627 dated 19.3.2012 issued by the complainant for Rs.2 lacs was dishonoured by the bankers of the complainant.   Due to delay, interest of Rs.12166/- was levied against plot no.2397 and interest of Rs.195613/- was accrued against plot no.2403.  The respondent has issued letter to the complainant on 10.12.2014 and asked him to get registered the deed of conveyance of the plots in question after paying the stamp duty amount of Rs.61800/- in plot no.2397 and amount of Rs.85100/- in plot no.2403, but the complainant insisted to get the deed of conveyance on the basis of basic sale price and not on the total cost of the plot.   The letter dated 10.12.2014 is legal and was issued to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent while doing so.

          We have perused the document Ex.C3 i.e. statement of account and in this document, net basic sale price of the plot has been shown as Rs.724625/- and similarly in Ex.C6, net basic sale price of the plot is shown as Rs.10,06,434/-.

          The complainant has placed on record the document Ex.C9 i.e. sale/conveyance deed of some other person & plot to prove that the stamp duty was paid on the basic cost of the plot.  So, the respondent should not demand the stamp duty on club cost, electricity equipment maintenance & security, EDC, IDC and delayed interest etc.

          We have perused the document Ex.R13 i.e. letter written by the respondent to the complainant and vide this letter, the respondent has demanded Rs.10200/- as registration fee and Rs.11236/- as DDVS charges.  In our view, the above said demand of respondent is wrong and illegal and the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount to the respondent.

          Accordingly, it is held that the respondent is only liable to demand the stamp duty on the net basic sale price of both the plots.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant after charging the revenue on the net basic sale price of both the plots in question.  However, it is made clear that the expenses of execution and registration charges of the conveyance deed and writing charges of conveyance deed shall be borne by the complainant.

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

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

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 26.11.2015