Delhi

East Delhi

CC/626/2016

RAKESH JINDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSHAVNATH DEVELOP. - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. No. 626/2016

 

 

	Dr. Rakesh Jindal, Balaji Plastic Surgery & Burns Centre, Advanced Eye Hospital, Near Church, Mall Road Karnal-132001, Haryana.	….Complainant
Versus
	M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, Parsvnath Metro Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, New Delhi-110032.	……OP

 

Date of Institution: 07.12.2016

Judgment Reserved on: 17.05.2023

Judgment Passed on: 17.05.2023

                       

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms.Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Judgment By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against OP alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service in demanding preferential location charges in allotment of the residential plot to him, on the pretext that his plot is falling within the PLC.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had booked a residential plot in the project floated by the OP and was allotted plot number A – 256 vide allotment letter/plot registration letter dated 19.02.2014. The OP after allotment had asked the complainant to pay a PreferentialLocation Charge (PLC) of Rs.1,00,000/-  for the plot allotted. The complainant submits that as per the allotment letter, the preferential charges were to be paid extra if,
   1. the plot is facing or adjoining the park,
   2. plot is facing or adjoining a commercial/shopping centre,
   3. plots, abutting 18 m and above wide Road,
   4. a corner plot.
2. It is the submission of the complainant that his plot doesn’t fall under any of the above categories and hence he is not liable to pay any PLC to the OP. The complainant has represented to OP through his various letters, calls and visits for consideration and asking as to how PLC is payable for his plot but no satisfactory answer received from OP. The complainant further submits that his plot is facing high tension (44 KV) line wires and there is no park in front of his plot and as per the guidelines issued by HUDA, the area under High tension electricity wire has to be an abandoned area to enter and cannot be considered as Park. The complainant’s legal notice dated 05.05.2016 to OP for withdrawal of the demand for PLC & pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental pain, harassment and financial loss remained unanswered. The complainant submits that OP has illegally and arbitrarily levied the PLC upon the complainant particularly when the plot in question does not fall under the category of ‘preferential location’ in the said township. The complainant further submits that no flat buyer agreement has ever been executed between the parties to date. The layout plan filed by the OP shows the area under the High-tension wire as a green area but not as a park.
3. The complainant submits that he has suffered losses due to OP’s illegal demands, unfair trade practices and mala-fide intentions and OP has failed to indemnify the complainant for the same and prays for direction for the withdrawal of the demand for PLC, compensation of Rs.1,00,00 towards harassment, mental agony, deficiency in service unfair trade practice and loss of finances suffered by the complainant and Rs.50,000/- for meeting the legal expenses.
4. Upon notice, OP has admitted to the allotment of the above-stated residential plot to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs. 24,12,0033/-  @ of Rs.7000/-  per square yard. OP submits that against the demand of Rs.21,12,030/- vide letter dated 13.03.2014 and reminder dated 07.04.2014, qua sale consideration of the plot due as per rules of the agreement,  the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 20,12,616/-. OP submitted that the plot is a preferential location plot, which is facing the park as shown on the map and in case of preferential location, the complainant has to pay PLC of Rs.99,417/-  as per rule and the complainant had also agreed at the time of booking to pay the same. OP further says that high tension wire is passing upon the park, which is a green area and is located at a sufficient distance from the complainant‘s plot. OP submits that at no point in time, the provisions of the flat buyer agreement dated 26.07.2016 have been violated and the complainant has not been able to establish any deficiency of service or consumer dispute as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The default on the part of the complainant in payment of the due and payable amount led to OP for cancelling the provisional allotment of the said plot in terms of the agreement as a direct consequence of non-payment of PLC.
5. OP stated that the prima - facie complainant is not maintainable as it is with regard to a plot and as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled “Ganesh Lal versus Shyam”, CA – 331/2007, that sale of a plot of land simpliciter is not covered under the Customer Protection Act.
6. OP further states that since the complainant himself has been defaulting continuously and acting in contravention of the agreed terms and conditions of the agreement he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in “Kusheshwar Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar”, (2007) 11 SCC 447.
7. OP summits that there is no justifiable cause of action or any breach of terms and conditions or negligence on its part and the present complaint filed by the complainant is to coerce and intimidate the OP and to extract an additional amount from OP and therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
8. The complainant has filed a rejoinder negating all the contention of the OP and reiterating the stand taken in his complaint. Both parties have filed their respective evidences along with documents and written arguments.
9. In support of his case, the complainant has filed:
   1. an allotment/plot registration letter dated 19.02.2014, Ex. C1;
   2.  various representations exchanged between the parties, Ex. C2 (Colly);
   3. legal notice dated 05.05.2016, along with the postal receipt, Ex. C3.

 

10. OP has filed:
    1. The board resolution, Ex. OP1;
    2. The form of expression of interest dated 21.02.2011, Ex. OP2;
    3. Copy of provisional allotment letter dated 19.02.2014, Ex. OP3;
    4. Copy of demand letter dated 13.03.2014 and reminder notice dated 07.04.2014, Ex. OP4 (colly);
    5. Copy of layout plan/map, Ex. OP5;
11. The commission has heard the parties and carefully gone through the records filed by them. It is the admitted case of OP that the above-stated plot is residential as per the allotment letter dated 19.02.2014 which specifically mention the external development charges (EDC) amounting to Rs.1,84,808.91/- and infrastructure development charges (IDC) amounting to Rs.20,622/- , therefore it is established that the sale is not of the mere sale of plot simpliciter rather is associated with the development of the same which development has to done by OP against consideration. Therefore, this objection of OP is bereft of any merit and the same stands rejected. The payment of Rs.3 lakhs at the time of expression of interest and payment of Rs.20,12,660/- is also not disputed.
12. The only issue, therefore, remains is as to whether the area in front of the above-stated plot of the complainant falls within the category of the park or not, over which the high-tension wire is passing and attracts the levying of PLC.
13. This commission has heard both parties and perused the documents on record carefully. This is the admitted case of OP that a high-tension wire of electricity is passing in front of the plot in question. The perusal of the layout plan also shows that high tension wire is passing through the area which is shown as green but nowhere it is mentioned that the space is to be used or developed as a park. The map very specifically shows the specific plot numbers, the para-metres of the roads and surrounding space but nowhere it is mentioned that the said space is left by the OP for developing a park.  Considering the documents on record and the admitted case of OP, this Commission is of the view that OP failed to show that there is or there may be a park in future in front of the plot of the complainant and the plot in question qualifies the categorisation for the levy of the PLC as per allotment letter dated 19.02.2014. Therefore, the Commission hereby holds that the PLC charges, as demanded by the OP, are not as per the layout plan & therefore are illegal & arbitrary and hence demanding the PLC charges by the OP from the complainant amounts to an unfair trade practice & deficiency in service. Although the complainant has not made any payment to the OP and has not suffered any pecuniary loss, yet definitely by demanding charges towards the PLC by the OP and then not removing the same, compelled the complainant to go for litigation on the unsolicited & illegal demand of the OP. Therefore, a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges is granted to the complainant to be paid by OP without interest within 30 days from the date of the receiving of the order. However, if the above said amount is not paid within 30 days, the entire amount of Rs.20,000/- as awarded would carry an interest @12% p.a. from the date of order till payment.
14. The file be consigned to the Record room after providing/sending a copy of the order to the parties as per the rules and the order be uploaded on web site.
15. The complaint case could not be decided within the statutory period due to the heavy pendency of the cases before the commission,
16. The order contains 07 pages each bears our signature

Pronounced on 17.05.2023.