Haryana

StateCommission

A/1145/2016

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PINKI GOEL - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY GHANGAS

18 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1145 of 2016

Date of Institution:        18.11.2016

Date of Decision :         18.09.2017

 

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Sushant City, Panipat through its authorised representative Shri Chinmoy Bera.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

1.      Pinki Goel w/o Sh. Navneet Goel,

2.      Smt. Saroj Bala w/o Sh. Pawan Goel,

          both Residents of 18/2 Kayasthan Street, Panipat.

 

                                      Respondents-Complainants

 

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

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Sandeep Malik, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated October 14^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.189 of 2013.

2.                Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited-Opposite Parties, (appellant herein) developed ‘Sushant City’ housing scheme at Panipat, having plots and Vilas of different measurements. Pinki Goel and Saroj Bala-complainants (respondents herein) purchased a plot bearing No.F-2700, measuring 200 sq. meters in Sushant City, Panipat, vide agreement dated September 21^st, 2011 (Annexure C-1. As per an endorsement dated November 10^th, 2012, total Basic Sale Price (BSP) of the above mentioned plot was Rs.16,83,489.06. Apart from the basic sale price, the complainants were also required to pay an amount of Rs.2,99,000/- as extra development charges. The complainants made all the above mentioned payments to the opposite party No.1 well in time. The opposite parties received total amount of Rs.32,38,379/-  from the complainants, reasons best known to them. The total amount was to be paid as per Payment Plan (Annexure C-2) up to November 16^th, 2012. The complainants were required to make payment of External Development Charges (EDC) amount of Rs.2,99,000/- in two installments within 75 days of the booking but the complainants made payment of the total EDC amount on the date of agreement dated September, 2011. Thereafter, the opposite parties forcibly obtained an amount of Rs.1,82,649/- from the complainants as interest on EDC amount. The conveyance-deed was executed on March 20^th, 2012. The opposite parties have taken plea that the interest amount was not obtained at the time of agreement due to oversight as the amount was not included with the total payment amount by the opposite parties. It is pleaded that the opposite parties had also not deposited EDC as well as interest amount with the Government in time and due to this reason, bank guarantee of the opposite parties was forfeited by the Government and that amount has also been included by the opposite parties in the total amount received Rs.1,82,649/-. The complainants used to make payment of the total sale price as well as EDC charges regularly. The opposite e parties have received an amount of Rs.1,82,649/- illegally.

3.                Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum with a prayer that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,82,649/- to the complainants; to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony and an amount of Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses.

4.                The Opposite Parties in their written version have taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainants have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is barred by limitation. It is further stated that the External Development Charges (EDC) interest amount was not deposited by the complainants and in fact the above mentioned amount was deposited by Shri Ratnesh Kapila, with whom the complainants entered into an agreement on September 21^st, 2011. It will be pertinent to mention here that the same property was earlier purchased by Ratnesh Kapila. As per Clause 3.3 of the Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-1), buyer undertakes to pay EDC for external development work and Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) or any other charges, as imposed by the Government/competent authority over and above the basic sale price of the property. The EDC and IDC are subject to revision by the Government as per Government licensing policy. As per Plot Buyer’s Agreement, the buyers-complainants are liable to make payment of EDC, IDC including interest, cost and such other charges. Regarding interest amount of EDC is provided under Clause 3.4 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement also. The opposite parties are also required to deposit EDC charges and interest amount with the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). It is denied that an amount of Rs.2,99,000/- was paid by the complainants on September 21^st, 2011. The above mentioned amount was paid by the previous owner of this plot. As the buyers caused delay in making payment of EDC, the opposite parties were entitled to claim interest of Rs.1,82,649/-. The complainants are not entitled for refund of the above mentioned amount. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainants be dismissed.

5.                Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated October 14^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainants was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to refund the amount in dispute Rs.1,82,649/- to the complainants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of the order till its actual realisation.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated October 14^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the opposite party No.1 – Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited has filed the present appeal bearing No.1145 of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainants.

8.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

9.                From the pleadings and record on the file, there appears to be no controversy of any type that earlier plot in dispute bearing No.F-2700, measuring 200 sq. meters, Sushant City, Panipat was purchased from the opposite party No.1 by Shri Ratnesh Kapila Resident of Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Later on the complainants purchased the above mentioned plot from its previous owner and permission in this regard was obtained from Ansal Properties. Regarding transfer of ownership of the plot, conveyance-deed (Annexure R-6) was executed on March 20^th, 2012. Earlier Plot Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure R-7) was executed between Ansal Properties, Ratnesh Kapila and the complainants. Payments regarding this plot prior to execution of the buyer’s agreement of every type were made by Ratnesh Kapila-previous owner of the plot. Earlier buyer’s agreement in between Ansal Properties and Ratnesh Kapila (Annexure C-1) was executed on September 21^st, 2011. In the Custom Ledger (Annexure C-6), it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.1,82,649/- was credited in the account of Ansal Properties on September 21^st, 2011. In this regard, a letter dated March 08^th, 2011 (Annexure C-8) was addressed to Ratnesh Kapila by the opposite parties. In this way, the interest amount imposed by the opposite parties upon Ratnesh Kapila was deposited in time. In this way, now situation is quite clear that the above mentioned amount of Rs.1,82,649/- as interest of EDC was not deposited by the complainants but the same was deposited by previous owner of the plot namely Ratnesh Kapila. Ratnesh Kapila has deposited that amount because he did not make payment of EDC in time and caused un-necessary delay. It is mentioned in clear words in Clause 3.3 and Clause 3.4 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-1) that in the event of delay in payment of EDC and other charges, Ansal Properties Limited are entitled to receive interest. During the course of arguments, there was no controversy regarding rate of interest and regarding delay in payment of the amount.

10.              As per discussions above in detail, it is clear that as the plot holders caused un-necessary delay in payment of the EDC Rs.2,99,000/-, the opposite party No.1 was entitled to receive interest on EDC. The interest amount has already been paid by Ratnesh Kapila, previous owner of the plot. In this way, receipt of interest amount of Rs.1,82,649/- is legal, valid and justified. The complainants are not entitled for refund of the above mentioned interest amount of Rs.1,82,649/- from the opposite parties.

11.              As per discussion above in detail, learned District Forum has committed an error while passing the impugned order dated October 14^th, 2016 whereby complaint filed by the complainants was allowed. The impugned order dated October 14^th, 2016 accordingly is held illegal, invalid and is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint stands dismissed.

12.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 18.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL