Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/13/2024

GAUTAM MALHOTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD - Opp.Party(s)

ATUL AGGARWAL

04 Dec 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Complaint Case No.	:	13 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	12.01.2024
Date of Decision	:	04.12.2024

 

 

Gautam Malhotra aged 42 years son of late Sh. Vinod Malhotra resident of H.No.348, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1.       Raheja Developers Ltd., through its Managing Director, Corporate Office 406, 'Rectangle One', D-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

2nd Address

Raheja Developers Ltd., Regd. Office: W4D, 204/5, Keshav Kunj, Western Avenue, Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062.

2.       Navin M Raheja Managing Director, Raheja Developers Ltd. Corporate Office 406, 'Rectangle One', D-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

3.       Sangeeta Kumar Director Raheja Developers Ltd. Corporate Office 406, 'Rectangle One', D-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

…..Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR. RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                            

Argued by:- Sh. Atul Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

None for the opposite parties.  

 

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

Brief facts:-

                   The complainant was allotted Apartment No. 1-063 at "Raheja's Vedanta," Dharmpur Village, Sector 108, Gurgaon, through an Allotment Letter dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure C-1). Subsequently, a Buyer's Agreement was executed on the same date, which was duly notarized (Annexure C-2). The agreement, however, was unilateral, containing one-sided clauses that favored the Opposite Parties, leaving the complainant with no option but to sign under duress. The complainant contends that this was an abuse of the Opposite Parties' dominant position and an unfair trade practice. According to the agreement, the complainant was required to pay the consideration amount in installments. He has paid a total of Rs.56,58,607.25, as per the customer ledger dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure C-3). However, the complainant disputes this ledger, asserting that it does not align with the original allotment or the payments made. The apartment was initially allotted at 1365 sq. ft. for a total cost of Rs.39,92,625/- (based on Rs. 2925 per sq. ft.), but in a letter dated 13.10.2015 (Annexure C-4), the Opposite Parties unilaterally increased the apartment’s area to 1501.5 sq. ft. and raised the price without the complainant's consent.

2]                After several disputes, a settlement was reached, and the complainant paid additional amounts of Rs. 8,040/-, Rs. 1,46,294/-, and Rs. 50,382/- via cheques dated 02.05.2016. In return, the Opposite Parties issued a No Due Certificate on 02.05.2016 (Annexure C-5). Despite this, the Opposite Parties ignored repeated requests from the complainant to execute the conveyance deed. The complainant made several written requests and emails to the Opposite Parties between 2018 and 2023 but was met with delay and excuses. The Opposite Parties failed to execute the conveyance deed even though the complainant had paid all dues. The matter was further delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In July 2023, the Opposite Parties sent a ledger that included discrepancies, such as showing outstanding amounts despite issuing a No Due Certificate in 2016. On 26.07.2023, the Opposite Parties raised demands for Rs.3,649/- towards VAT, Rs.1,23,849/- for 33KV charges and Rs. 1,70,691/- as late payment fees. The complainant disputed these charges, especially since VAT and 33KV charges were either never communicated or should have been handled by the RWA. The late payment fees were also challenged as they were levied despite the No Due Certificate issued in 2016.

3]                The complainant paid the 33KV charges directly to the RWA and cleared the VAT difference. However, the Opposite Parties have still not executed the conveyance deed further compounding the complainant’s grievances. The complainant asserts that the Opposite Parties’ actions represent grave deficiency in service, unfair trade practices and deliberate harassment. He demands immediate execution of the conveyance deed and the revocation of the illegal late payment fees of Rs.1,70,653/-. Additionally, the complainant seeks compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental anguish and injury as well as Rs.1,10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Reply of Opposite Parties:-

4]                While contesting the complaint, it has been stated by the opposite parties that Article 13 of the Buyer’s Agreement (dated 19.10.2010) outlines the execution of the conveyance deed. It has further been stated that Clause 13.1 explicitly states that the complainant (the allottee) is responsible for paying stamp duty, registration fees and other expenses related to the conveyance deed. It has further been stated that the complainant has not paid these costs preventing the opposite parties from executing the deed. It has further been stated that the possession letter (dated 21.06.2016) informed the complainant that the conveyance deed would be executed on the company's standard format with the complainant bearing all associated expenses. It has further been stated that the complainant was again reminded of this responsibility in a letter dated 05.04.2024. Regarding the complainant’s challenge to the late payment fee of Rs.1,70,653/-, the opposite parties state that the complainant has cleared outstanding charges, including electricity and CAM fees as confirmed in a No Due Certificate dated 16.11.2023. It has further been stated that the complainant improperly included Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, the company's directors, who are not liable for the company's debts. They assert that Raheja Developers Limited is a separate legal entity, distinct from its directors and shareholders. Lastly, the opposite parties seek the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder:-

5]                The complainant filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint and repudiating those as raised by the opposite parties in their reply.

6]                The parties led evidence in support of their case.

7]                We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record.

Observations/findings of this Commission:-

8]                The dispute in the present complaint is only with regard to the alleged illegal demand of Rs.1,70,653/- raised by the opposite parties and non execution of conveyance deed. First coming to the issue with regard to the alleged illegal demand raised by the opposite parties, it is the specific case of the complainant that in view of clear No Due Certificate dated 02.05.2016 (Annexure C-5) issued by the opposite parties, the said demand of Rs.1,70,653/-  on account of late payment fee is totally arbitrary and illegal. Upon reviewing the ledger account provided to the complainant (Annexure    C-3), it is clear that the late payment fees of Rs.1,70,653/- is charged for the period starting from 31.05.2016. However, No Due Certificate (Annexure C-5), issued on 02.05.2016, explicitly states that the payment made by the complainant was "full and final," indicating that all dues up to that date were settled. The certificate further confirms that no additional dues would be raised against the unit in question, except for specific items such as VAT, TDS, Stamp Duty, 33 KV charges, Maintenance Charges, RWA fees, and any government levies. Thus, in our considered view, the imposition of late payment fees after the issuance of No Due Certificate is not only contradictory but also unjustifiable. The certificate clearly stipulates that the complainant had fulfilled all their payment obligations as of 02.05.2016 and any future charges would be limited to the specified exceptions. Therefore, charging late payment fees for a period starting 31.05.2016, despite the certificate indicating that there were no further dues is both legally and contractually erroneous. This demand for late payment fees is, therefore, in violation of the terms laid out in No Due Certificate and constitutes an illegal demand. The opposite parties' attempt to impose such charges after the settlement of dues is unfounded. As such, we quash/set aside the said illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs.1,70,653/-.

9]                Now coming to the second issue with regard to execution of the conveyance deed, it is the specific case of the complainant that the Opposite Parties have still not executed the conveyance deed, further compounding the his grievances whereas on the other hand, the opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant is not coming forward to do the needful. Perusal of record transpires that the complainant vide email dated 08.02.2018, Annexure C-6, requested the opposite parties to get the registry of his flat done and the opposite parties vide email dated 10.02.2018 conveyed to the complainant stamp duty charges.  The complainant reverted the same day vide email dated 10.02.2018 and sought clarification with regard to cheque drawee name/details, any additional or hidden charges beyond the amount mentioned and when he could come to office to complete the formalities. Again complainant vide email dated 05.02.2019 asked the opposite parties to facilitate registration of his flat and this time, the opposite parties state vide email dated 06.02.2019 that they are in process of purchasing E-stamp paper for the unit of the complainant and as it is a government procedure, the same shall take more time, subsequently, they would schedule his registry. Thereafter, the complainant vide his email dated 06.02.2019 informed the opposite parties that he had taken possession in 2015 and its 2019 now and he wondered, it really took 4 years to buy the   e-stamp paper. He requested the opposite parties to inform him, whether the complainant could purchase the e-stamp paper directly. Further vide email dated 09.09.2019, the complainant again requested the opposite parties to furnish him with flat registration charges amount payable, Bank Account details for registration payment and procedure and date for completing formalities. The complainant again vide email dated 22.07.2023 reiterated his request for the execution of the conveyance deed in his favour but this time, the opposite parties vide email dated 25.07.2023 sent ledger in respect of the apartment in question and demanded certain amount i.e. illegal demand of Rs.1,70,653/- on account of late payment, from the complainant before the execution of the registration process, which this Commission has already held to be illegal and arbitrary in view of No Due Certificate (Annexure C-5), issued by the opposite parties on 02.05.2016. Therefore, the delay and latches were                         clearly on the part of the opposite parties, whose clear intention was to prolong the matter on one pretext or the other.

10]              The situation faced by the complainant is truly distressing. Despite having taken possession of the property back in 2015, the conveyance deed has yet to be executed by the opposite parties. This prolonged delay in fulfilling a fundamental contractual obligation is not only a clear example of deficiency in service but also constitutes an unfair trade practice. The complainant, having completed all necessary payments and obligations, should have had the conveyance deed executed in a timely manner, as per the agreement. However, the opposite parties have failed to act on this, leaving the complainant in a state of uncertainty and deprivation of legal rights over the property they have already occupied. This delay, extending over several years, reflects poorly on the professionalism and commitment of the opposite parties. From a consumer protection perspective, this failure to execute the conveyance deed in a reasonable timeframe, despite the complainant having met all their responsibilities, demonstrates a disregard for the complainant’s legal rights and interests. It is a classic case of deficiency in service, as the developer has not adhered to the terms of the agreement, leaving the complainant without the full benefits of his    purchase. Furthermore, such a delay amounts to unfair trade practice, as it undermines the trust and confidence that consumers place in service providers. The complainant, having fulfilled all obligations, is entitled to the execution of the conveyance deed without undue delay. The continued failure of the opposite parties to honor this commitment is not just a breach of contractual terms but a violation of consumer rights, warranting strong legal scrutiny and redress.

11]              Given the clear deficiency in service and the occurrence of unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant is undoubtedly entitled to compensation. The prolonged delay in executing the conveyance deed, despite the complainant having fulfilled all contractual obligations, is a breach of the terms of the agreement. The complainant has been left in a position where their legal rights to the property remain uncertain and this situation has caused undue distress, inconvenience and financial burden. Under consumer protection laws, the complainant has the right to be compensated for the loss and hardship caused by the opposite parties' failure to perform their duties in a timely manner. The prolonged delay in transferring ownership not only hinders the complainant’s ability to fully exercise his rights over the property but also affects his ability to sell, mortgage or otherwise deal with the property as he deems fit. In addition to the inconvenience and emotional distress caused by the delay, the complainant has also had to bear the financial implications of the opposite parties' inaction, which may include unnecessary costs, possible legal fees or loss of opportunities associated with the property. Therefore, considering the severity of the deficiency in service, the failure to honor the agreement and the impact of these actions on the complainant’s rights, it is only fair and just that the complainant be awarded compensation. This compensation will cover not only the direct financial losses but also the emotional distress and inconvenience caused by the opposite parties' continued negligence.

12]              For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted. The opposite parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-

(i)       not to raise/charge illegal demand of Rs.1,70,653/- on account of late payment fee outstanding from the complainant.

(ii)      to get the conveyance deed of the unit i.e. Apartment No.1-063 at "Raheja's Vedanta," Dharmpur Village, Sector 108, Gurgaon, executed by providing complete details and calculations of stamp-duty payable, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the opposite parties shall be liable to pay an amount of Rs.500/- per day from the date of default i.e. after expiry of stipulated period of 45 days till the date of execution of the conveyance deed.

(ii)      to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and also on account of deficiency in rendering service and adopting of unfair trade practice by the opposite parties and also pay cost of litigation of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant; within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the aforesaid amounts of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.35,000/- from the date of default i.e. after expiry of stipulated period of 45 days  till  realization.

13]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge forthwith.

14]              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

04.12.2024

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

[RAJESH  K.  ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad