Haryana

StateCommission

A/1025/2016

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARDEEP KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY GHANGAS

18 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                       

First Appeal No  :      1025 of 2016

Date of Institution:     27.10.2016

Date of Decision :      18.08.2017

 

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Sushant City, Panipat through its Authorized Representative Sh. Tajinder Pal Singh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Pardeep Kumar Gupta son of Sh. Niranjan Lal, resident of House No.734, Model Town, Panipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.                                   

 

Present:               Shri Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Sandeep Malik, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited-opposite party (for short ‘Builder’) is in appeal against the order dated September 08^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Pardeep Kumar Gupta-complainant was allowed. For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“As a sequel to our aforementioned findings and observations, we hereby accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of wrong, illegal and unjustified demand of Rs.1,17,449/- raised from the complainant vide letter dated 28.12.2010 (Ex.C6) within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

 

2.      Earlier to filing the present complaint, the complainant filed complaint No.163 of 2011 before the District Forum. 

3.      The complaint was allowed vide order dated August 27^th, 2012 granting the same relief to the complainant, which has been granted by the District Forum vide impugned order dated September 08^th, 2016.

4.      Aggrieved of the said order, the builder filed appeal No.1126 of 2012 before this Commission, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President (as he then was) vide order dated November 30^th, 2012.

5.      Against the said order, the complainant filed revision petition No.937 of 2013 before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. 

6.      The National Commission vide order dated January 30^th, 2015 remanded the matter to the District Forum for fresh adjudication on the issue of liability of payment of interest on EDC charges clarifying that rest of the issues were not to be decided again. 

7.      After passing of the order the National Commission, the District Forum by impugned order allowed the complaint, as stated above.

8.      Firstly a few admitted facts. The builder entered into an agreement dated June 16^th, 2006 (Annexure R-6) with Ambient Land Holding Limited which was transferred in the name of complainant.  The agreement pertains to Plot No.E-2220, measuring 416.2 sq. yards/348 sq. metres, at the rate of Rs.1346/- per square yard (Rs.1610/- per sq. metre) Sushant City, Panipat.  

9.      Per Clause 2 of the agreement, apart from the price of the flat, the buyer was to pay Extra Development Charges (EDC) at the rate of Rs.1028.56 per sq. metre/Rs.860/- per square yard as per Schedule II annexed with the agreement.

10.    Schedule II reads as under:-

SCHEDULE II
Payment of Extra Development Charges
1.	Within 30 days of booking		Rs……….
		OR
1.	Within 1 months of booking		Rs.44,742.36
2.	Within 3 months of booking		Rs.44,742.36
3.	Within 5 months of booking		Rs.44,742.36
4.	Within 7 months of booking		Rs.44,742.36
5.	Within 9 months of booking		Rs.44,742.36
6.	Within 11 months of booking		Rs.44,742.36
7.	Within 13 months of booking		Rs.44,742.36
8.	Within 15 months of booking		Rs.44,742.36

 

11.    The total amount of EDC comes to Rs.3,57,938.88.  It is not in dispute that there was any default on the part of the complainant in paying the amount of EDC as per Schedule II. 

12.    The only plea raised by learned counsel for the builder is that amount of EDC, that is, Rs.3,57,938.88, the complainant was liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum because the builder entered into an agreement dated September 22^nd, 2006 (Annexure A-7) with the Government of Haryana through Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. 

13.    As per clause 1 (b) i) of the agreement (Annexure A-7), the builder was to pay EDC to Haryana Urban Development Authority through the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana either in lump sum within 30 days from the date of grant of licence or in eight equal six monthly installments of 12.5% each, that is, first installment was to be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of grant of licence and balance 87.5% in seven equal six monthly installments alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum which was to  be charged on unpaid portion of the amount. 

14.    On the basis of this agreement (Annexure A-7), the builder demanded the interest at the rate of 15% on the installments EDC vide demand notice (Exhibit C-7).

15.    Learned counsel for the builder has fairly conceded at bar that there is no clause in the agreement (Annexure R-6) that at any point of time, the complainant was liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% on the installments of EDC rather he has stated that the complainant had paid the installments as per the Schedule II.  Not only that, Customer Statement (Exhibit C-4) has been issued by the builder whereby the entire amount of EDC, that is, Rs.3,57,938.88 was paid by the complainant to the builder.  Since the amount of EDC was paid by the complainant to the builder as per Schedule II, so, question of charging the interest on the basis of agreement whatsoever executed between the builder and Government of Haryana is not warranted.

16.    For the reasons recorded supra, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

 

 

Announced: 18.08.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK