District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 158/2020.
Date of Institution:01.06.2020
Date of Order:.13.06.2023.
Shri Balraj Singh S/o Shri Jhamel Singh R/o Flat No. 601, The Lion CGHS, Plot No.30-31, Sector-2, Ballabgarh, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. SRS Real Estate Limited through its Chairman Anil Jindal, Head office:- SRS Tower, 730-732, 7th floor, Near Mewla Maharajpur Metro Station, Faridabad.
2. Anil Jindal Chairman/Director of SRS Real Estate Limited, Head Office:- SRS Tower, 730-732, 7th floor, Near Mewla Maharajpur Metro Station, Faridabad.
3. SRS Real Estate Limited through its Authorized Signatory Head Office:- SRS Tower,730-732, 7th floor, Newar Mewla Maharajpur Metro Station Faridabad.
4. DTCP, District Palwal.
5. STP, District Faridabad.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh.Vijay Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Parveen Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1 to 3.
Sh. Deen Dayal, Assistant on behalf of opposite parties Nos.4 & 5.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant booked one flat admeasuring 180 sq. yds. In their project “Prime Floor” at Sector-6, Palwal. The complainant deposited his first three installment vide cheque No. 001497 dated 13.02.2011 amounting to Rs.3,10,000/- cheque No. 641109 dated 13.02.211 amounting to Rs.71,250/- and cheque No. 67681 dated 29.06.2012 amounting to Rs.1,67,079. The total amount of Rs.5,48,329/- was deposited by complainant as per opposite party demand. After receipt of considerable part of cost of flat, complainant was allotted flat No. D1-21A, Ground floor vide their letter NO.1F/PWL/-06/-130 dated 16.03.2013. The possession of the said flat was to be delivered/handed over to the complainant with in a period of three years from the date of booking of the said flat. Later on opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 became dishonest and a telephonic call from representative of opposite party from her mobile No. 9213094138 at 4 p.m. on dated 16.01.2015 was received by complainant on his mobile phone and asked complainant to come and sign the sign the agreement and complainant seek for 2-3 days time to sign the agreement, The complainant visited at the office of the opposite party and met representative of opposite party and she told complainant that all the ground floors had already been allotted to someone else and some Ist & 2nd floors were still lying un-allotted and asked the complainant that he might choose any one of them. The complainant was shocked and told her that he applied for ground floor and on his request opposite party had allotted him a flat NO. D1-21A, at ground floor vide opposite party letter NO.1F/PWL/06/0130 dated 16.03.2013 and he had deposited the installment accordingly. A letter dated 19.05.2015 was received by complainant in which it had been intimated that it was the reminder of letter IF/PWL/06/0130 dated 01.09.2014 for collection of cheque before 10h of June and it was surprising that complainant never received such letter before. The complainant sent a letter dated 18.09.2017 vide which the opposite party was requested to return the amount but no amount was returned and even no reply had even been given to those letter. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) refund the amount i.e. Rs.5,48,329/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and also pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental tension and harassment.
b) handover the possession of already allotted flat No. D1-21A at Ground floor,.
c) any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant was himself at default and in breach of material terms and conditions of allotment including non-execution of Buyer Agreement despite in receipt of various request and reminders in this regard. Further complainant himself had failed to make the payments due on construction despite receipt of various reminders and notices by opposite party for making the payment s due and hence cannot shift the burden on the opposite party for non-delivery of possession of aforesaid floor within stipulated time period. The properties of SRS company had been attached by the Enforcement Department and Income Tax department or before 2018 to till date and all the directors were in judicial custody from 08.04.2018 to till date that’s why the project namely prime floor not completed within time period. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite parties Nos.4 & 5 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.4 & 5 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant was not maintainable against the answering opposite party as the complainant was not a consumer as defined in Section2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. No agreement of whatsoever type had been executed by the complainant with the answering opposite party. The complainant had purchased the flats from opposite party No.1 on the terms and conditions mutually agreed by them and as mentioned in the Flat Buyers Agreement executed by and between the complainants and opposite party No.1. The answering opposite parties were not a party to said agreement. The payment of the flat had also been made directly the complaint to opposite party No.1. The grievance of the complainant was also against opposite party No.1. Hence the answering opposite parties had unnecessarily been impleaded as party to the complaint. However main grievance of the complainant was that he had booked the flat with opposite party No.1 in the project named as “Affordable Group Housing Project” situated at Sector-6, Palwal being developed by opposite party No.1. However, despite payment of most the sale consideration money of the flat paid by the complainant to opposite party No.1, he had failed to deliver possession of the same to the complainants within the stipulated period as mentioned in the Flat Buyers Agreement executed by them with opposite party No.1. The complainant have prayed before this Hon’ble Commission to direct opposite party to refund the amount i.e. Rs.5,48,329/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and also pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental tension and harassment. Handover the possession of already allotted flat NO. D1-21A at Ground floor. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
Opposite party No.1 submitted application for grant of licence under the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urbans Area Act, 1975, to develop the flats, situated in Sector-6, Palwal, into Affordable Group Housing Colony in the department of the answering opposite party. The case was examined by the department of the answering opposite party. The case was examined by the Department in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Development & Regulations of Urban Areas Act of 1975 and as per Affordable Housing Plicy dated 19.08.2013. Accordingly, license No. 117 dated 23.11.2012 was granted to opposite party No.1 to develop the low cost/Affordable Group Housing Colony, for flats in Sector-6, Tehsil & Distt. Palwal. It was also pointed out that the licencee/developer i.e opposite party No.1 was required to comply with the terms and conditions for grant of licence as agreed on the LC-IV and the bilateral agreement executed by the colonizer and director, Town & country Planning Deptt. Haryana, Chandigarh.
The licensee had not deposited the abovethe amount of Rs.371.25 lacs against original EDC as on 17.04.2018 and also not complied with the other terms and conditions of the licence despite show cause notices issued to them and grant of opportunity of personal hearing. Accordingly, licence No. 117 of 2012 was cancelled vide order dated 21.08.2018. It was further stated that while cancelling the licence, following actions had also been ordered to be taken in this case:-
i) A public notice may be issued in the newspapers, informing the general public about the cancellation of license and that the Administration of this license colony had been taken over by the Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Haryana.
ii) Senior Town Planner, Faridabad i.e opposite party No.3 had been directed to take over Administration of this licence colony on behalf of Department and to put up a ‘Board” at site indicating that the Administration of this licenced colony had been taken over by the Department of Town and Country Planning.
iii) Senior Town Planner, Faridabad i.e opposite party No.3 had also been directed to maintain the details of the account of the allottees. The allottees had been advised to deposit the balance installments with STP, Faridabad, who had been directed to maintain the account of each and every flat holder.
iv. The licencee had been directed under section 10(A) of the Act of 1975 to deposit all outstanding dues on account of EDC and also to give the information of sold and unsold property within a period of 15 days so that unsold properties can be disposed off to recover the Govt. dues.
v) Deputy Commissioner, Palwal had been requested to recover the above said outstanding dues as arrears of land revenue in accordance with the order dated 21.08.2018. In order to restrict creation of further third party rights on the instant licenced area, he had also been requested to ensure that no sale deed against the licenced land was executed/registered in future.
vi) A committee had been constituted under the chairmanship of Administrator, HSVP, Faridabad, STP, Faridabad will be member secretary and DTP, Palwal, Xen, HSVP, Palwal will be the members of the committee, which will take over the colony for carrying out further necessary action.
vii) Decision had been made to debar the present Directors of all the companies of opposite party NO.3 from grant of any further licence in the State of Haryana.
4. The following actions had been taken:-
i) Senior Town Planner, Faridabad had issued public notice in Dainik Jagran Newspaper on 08.09.2018 and had got the Board installed at the site of the licensed colony. In the public notice and on the board, the General public had been informed about the cancellation of license and that the Administration of this license colony had been taken over by the Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Haryana. Also the General public had been advised not to indulge in any sale purchase/transaction with the licensee..
ii) The committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Administrator, HSVP, Faridabad hold a meeting on 03.10.2018. The committee visited the site of the project in question and it was decided to start the procedure of evaluation of project. Another meeting of the committee was held on 14.03.2019 and the committee decided that the quotations from the approved valuers may be invited for the evaluation for the amount required for the completion of the project in all respect. Thereafter the committee will examine the evaluation report and will also suggest the further line of action to complete the project in a time bound manner. However, it is submitted that it was a time consuming process, but the efforts will be made to initiate the development works after completion of the other procedural formalities i.e. preparation of the estimated cost of the project likely to be incurred in completing the project, arrangement of funds required for completing the project and nomination of a competent Government/Semi Government/Private developing agency. Opposite parties Nos.4 & 5 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–SRS Real Estate Ltd. & Others with the prayer to: a) refund the amount i.e. Rs.5,48,329/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and also pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental tension and harassment. b) handover the possession of already allotted flat No. D1-21A at Ground floor, c) any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Balraj Singh, Ex.C1 & 2 – receipts,, Ex.C-3 – order dated 01.10.2019 passed by DCDRF, Faridabad , Ex.C-4 & 5 – statement of account, Ex.C-6 – letter dated 16.03.2012, Ex.C-7 – letter dated 05th June 2014, Ex.C-8 – letter dated 19th May 2015, Ex.C9 - letter, Ex.C-10 - letter dated 18.9.2017,, Ex.C-11 – postal receipt, Ex.C-12 – letter, Ex.C-13 – postal receipt, Ex.C-14 – letter dated 11.01.2018,, Ex.C-15 – postal receipt,=.
Counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 has made a statement that written statement already filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 be read as evidence on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 vide order dated 19.4.2023.
Shri Deen Dayal, Assistant on behalf of opposite parties Nos.4 & 5 has made a statement that written version filed on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 4 &5 may be read as evidence on behalf of opposite parties Nos.4 & 5. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of opposite parties Nos.4 & 5 has been closed vide order dated 10.10.2022.
7. There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant was allotted flat No. D1-21A, Ground floor, SRS City, Sector-6, Palwal by the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 vide allotment letter dated 16.3.2013. The opposite parties have not offered possession of the said flat till date.
8. Meanwhile, the license of the developer was cancelled on 21.08.2018 for nonpayment of necessary charges to the govt. and the administration of the aforementioned colony was taken over a committee headed by Administrator HUDA Faridabad and STP Faridabad has been directed to take over the administration of the aforementioned colony and also maintain the details of the accounts of the allottees.
So, effectively and for all practical purposes, the finances of the said colony are now in the hands of opposite party No. 5/STP Faridabad. There are no other changes made in the terms and conditions given in the Allotment Letter. It is evident that as per Sect-14, a successful allottee can surrender his flat with deduction of Rs.25,000/- by the developer. We see no violation of any terms and conditions of the agreement in this act of the complainant.
9. In the light of the above, the complaint is allowed. Since it is not advisable to refund the paid amount of every complainant, so as per the prayer of the complainant, the STP is directed to get the flats completed and handover possession as early as possible, subject to the balance payment of the flat to be cleared by the complainant.
10. (i) As per the notice issued by the STP, the complainant will submit proofs of amounts deposited in the office of STP Faridabad so that the same is verified.
ii) The STP will collect the balance amount from the complainant
for further construction and development of the area as per rules.
iii) The opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 -SRS is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5500/- as compensation for causing mental tension and agony alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation charges within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on:13.06.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad
