Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. :120
Instituted on : 07.03.2024
Decided on : 07.10.2024.
Reetuw/o Pradeep R/o Flat no. D-404, Suncity Heights, Rohtak, Age- 47 years.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Suncity Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd, registered office LGF-10, Vasant Square Mall, Plot-A, Sector-B, Pocket V, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi &Suncity Business Tower, Second Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon 122002, Site office (Maintenance) at Ground Floor, Block-G, Suncity Heights, Sector 36A, Rohtak through its authorized person.
- M/s Suncity Project Pvt. Ltd. N-49, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi, 110001 through its authorized person at Ground Floor, Block-G. Suncity Heights, Sector 36A, Rohtak.
- M/s Sonika Properties Pvt. Ltd.
- Ashwamedha Colonizers Pvt. Ltd.
- Jyotima Colonizers Pvt.Ltd.
- Dipesh Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
- VaradrajBuildwellPvt. Ltd.
- Satkartar Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
- Bansiwala Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
- T. A. BuildconPvt. Ltd. and
- Mahaketu Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
- Samdarishi Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
- Shyamli Projects Pvt. Ltd.
- Nachiketa Projects Pvt. Ltd.", all having their Registered Office at LGF-10, Vasant Square Mall, Plot-A, Sector-B, Pocket V, Community Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070, through their authorized person Adesh Mittal s/o Sh. R.K. Mittal site office at Sector 36, SuncityRohtak.
……….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.AbhishekNarwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.AnuragMalik Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that the respondents being real estate developer, obtained a license and got sanctioned a demarcation plan of its residential plotted colony situated in sector 36-A, SuncityRohtak vide license no. 9 of 2009 issued by the Department of Town & Country planning and developed a residential plotted colony in Sector 36 A Rohtak.Respondents advertised for allotment of plots in the alleged colony. Complainant influenced by the assurance given by the respondents agreed to purchase a plot bearing number A-19 in the residential plotted colony developed by the respondents in Sector 36A SuncityRohtak. At the time of booking of the plot no. A-19, respondents shown a plan of the residential plotted colony and said that the plot no.A-19 is bounded towardsEastern side Plot no. A-20, Western side: green area/park, towards Northern Side: Plot no.A-14 and towards Southern side: 24 Meter Wide Road and the complainant paid the booking amount of the plot to the respondents. It was told by the respondents that as per policy of the Town & Country planning, each plot of the colony is having approach through either by 24 mtr.wide road or by 12 m wide road. Further as per policy, the minimum required width of the roads of the residential plotted colony is 12 Mtr.A road with 24 Mtr. width was to be constructed for the plot of complainant bearing No.A-19 but without construction of road (24 Mtr. wide), respondents demanded preferential location charges of plot no.A-19 from the complainant. The complainant reminded the respondents that the road has not been constructed on the spot therefore the demand notice for preferential location charges was withdrawn by the respondents. Respondents got signature of the complainant on agreement having some blank area by saying that it is approved format of the company and no deviation in the approved format is allowed. At page no. 17 of the agreement, it was specifically mentioned that the maintenance charges shall be paid by the complainant only after completion of development works by the company i.e. roads etc. and other basic services/amenities. Thereafter, respondents pressurized the complainant to get execute the conveyance deed of the plot in her favour by paying full amount of the plot to the respondents. To secure the ownership of her plot and to save her hard-earned money, complainant agreed to pay the full amount of the plot to the respondents but with the specific condition that respondents shall specifically mention the provision of 24 Mtr. wide road in Southern side of the plot and Green area in western side of the of plot no. A-19, Sector 36 A in the Conveyance deed and shall provide these services to the complainant as early as possible. But all the basic services/amenities (specifically road with 24 mtr. Width) as mentioned in the conveyance deed are still not provided by the respondents on the spot. The respondents had represented that the 24 Mtr. wide road on southern side of the plot shall be connected to the Ladoth road but there is no such connectivity/entry from Ladoth road provided by the respondents (as per plan). After some time respondents constructed water tanks and rooms in this green park area against the commitment given by respondents to the complainant. No green area/park developed by the respondents in western side of the plot no. A-19. Further this area generally remained occupied by the staff of the respondents. The complainant wanted to construct her house but failed todo so due to deficiency in basic services/amenities on the part of respondents. It was agreed by the respondents that they are bound to pay Rs.15 per month per Sq. yards to the complainant if the possession of plot by providing basic services/amenities not delivered by the respondents to the complainant till 1 June 2012. Further respondents always demanded due amount along with interest @24% per month from the defendants therefore respondents are also liable to pay interest on the due amount @24% per annum to the complainant. Respondents issued a demand notice for maintenance charges to the complainant and vide reply dated 08.07.2023, complainant had refused to pay the maintenance charges to the respondents due to non-availability of basic amenities/services for the plot number A-19 and had also demanded compensation amount @ Rs.15 per month per square yard with interest 24% per annum but respondents had failed to provide the basic services amenities and to pay the compensation amount to the complainant. Respondents again issued fresh notice of demand of Rs.96,457/- dated 06.01.2024 as due maintenance amount of the plot which is illegal, null and void and respondents are not entitled to claim the same till the basic services/amenities provided by the respondents.All these activities of the respondents are against the assurance of the respondents and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that the demand notice of Rs.96,457/- dated 06.01.2024 may kindly be declared illegal, null and void and respondents may kindly be restrained to demand any maintenance amount from complainant (including her subsequent transferee/assignee/heirs etc.).Further, respondents may kindly be directed to pay the compensation amount @ Rs.15 per month per Sq. yards from 1 July 2012 with interest @24 % p.a. to the complainant, to construct the road of 24 Mtr. width in front of plot No. A-19, Sector 36 A, SuncityRohtak with in a time bound frame and to connect the same to the Ladoth road.Further, respondents may kindly be restrained from creating any type of nuisance by using the western side of the plot No. A-19, Sector 36 A, SuncityRohtak for any other purpose except for Green Park and to fully develop the green area to be used by the inhabitants of the Colony/Suncity Sector 36 A in the interest of the justice. It is also prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- + 11,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that complaint has been filed by the complainant to avoid the payment of maintenance charges. All basicamenities are already provided by the O.Ps from the day of offer of possession vide letter dated 09.05.2012.It is submitted that the complainant purchased the plot in a re-sale and after a personal inspection of the road, complete site, plot, and drawings approved by the concerned department. According to the approved drawing, there is some land left in front of the complainant's plot, which is part of the road and was not sold by the owner to the OP. Despite repeated efforts, some portion of the 24-meter road was left without the construction of a metal road, but it was leveled to the road level. The fact was also communicated to the purchaser/complainant at the time of sale/transfer. It was also mentioned that if the landowner sold or developed his land or if it was acquired by the government, then only a concrete/metal road would be constructed. There is no hindrance or obstacle to ingress and egress in the said plot. All other amenities have already been provided as per the agreement and government guidelines.However, the width of road constructed as per the government guidelines and approved plans. From the first day of the purchase of the said plot, it was known to the complainant that some portion of the road was not constructed due to the above-mentioned issue. However, in the future, a metal road will be constructed. There is no issue with ingress and egress, and a 24-meter open area/road is available for use in front of the complainant's plot. The complainant cannot avoid her maintenance charges, for which she is bound to pay as per the maintenance agreement, conveyance deed and other related documents, the amount collected is used for the benefit and well-beingof the residential colony. It is denied that O.Ps got signature of the complainant on agreement having some blank area by saying that it is approved format of the company and no deviation in the approved format is allowed. The complainant has signed the same after going through the contents and admitted as correct. The development work had already been completed by the opposite partiesand there is no pending work.The maintenance charges are demanded after completion of development work. The complainant disputes for the part of street/road which is not owned by the O.Ps and not in approved plan of the Licensee Company. Hence, it was not to be developed by the opposite parties. The complainant was herself in a hurry of execution of conveyance deed. After the development work,Opposite parties offered possession to the allottees/plot owners and requested them to execute/register the conveyance deed, which is quite lawful in every way. So, there is no question of threat. If the complainant still has any objections, then O.P.s are ready to return the sale consideration amount after adding the nationalized Bank FDR interest rate over the said amount from the date of deposit. The road/street and green area are very much available at the spot as per the approved drawing, and the same is explained above.There are no hindrances to reach the plot of complainant. The complainant can construct the said plot as per her choice. House on Plot No. 20 was constructed in year 2018 which is adjacent to the plot of complainant proves that all the excuses/deficiency allegation are only to avoid the payment of maintenance charges. The basic services/amenities i.e. 24 meters road are very much available at the spot as per the drawing, and the same was explained to the complainant at the time of purchase/booking/transfer. The connectivity is very much available from Ladoth road, and an iron gate was also installed on the road which connects to Ladath road. The said road was not used by the persons of society and on their request, the same was temporarily closed for security reasons. If any resident of the society wants to use the road, it is available. The use of more gates would require more security, more manpower, and would increase the maintenance charges and security issues.The construction was done as per approved plans, no rooms were constructed. Construction was done for water needs and pump sets. The green area on the western side of the plot is very much available at the spot. It is denied that this area was occupied by the staff of opposite parties. The basic services are already provided in the sector, i.e. rood, water, sewerage, electricity, street light, parks, security, etc. The plot is ready for construction from OP's side from the day of the offer of possession, it is the complainant who is not ready to construct the plot and not ready to pay maintenance charges and filed the present complaint on false grounds only to avoid payment of maintenance charges. There is no such complaint ever given bythe residents of this sector. At present, more than 100 houses were constructed in the sector in the last decade, and they are living happily in the sector without this type of complaint.The present complaint was filed on false grounds only to avoid payment of maintenance charges, otherwise, there is no reason to file the present complaint. The entire sector was developed as per the approved plan issued by the Govt. Hence, the demand letter is valid in all respects as basic amenities are already available in the sector. The contents regarding the issuance of a demand letter dated 06/01/2024 for Rs.96,457/ against maintenance charges is correct. The demand letter is legal and valid in all respects. All the basic services were provided from the day of the offer of possession. Hence, there is no question of payment of compensation to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and closed his evidence on 13.05.2024. Ld. Counsel for the opposite partieshas tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R16 and closed his evidence on 16.07.2024.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.In the present case grievance of the complainant is that at the time of booking of the plot no. A-19, respondents shown a plan of the residential plotted colony and said that the plot no.A-19 is bounded towardsEastern side Plot no. A-20, Western side: green area/park, towards Northern Side: Plot no.A-14 and towards Southern side: 24 Meter Wide Road. At page no. 17 of the agreement, it was specifically mentioned that the maintenance charges shall be paid by the complainant only after completion of development works by the company i.e. roads etc. and other basic services/amenities. But the basic amenities are not provided at the site and the 24 mts. road is not completed before the plot of complainant, due to which she is unable to construct the house. We have perused the site plan placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C7. As per this site plan there is 24 meter wide road in the southern side of the plot of complainant but the same is not constructed till date by the opposite parties. The road is narrow before the plot of complainant and as per the assurance of opposite party, the same will be done broad in near future. It is a presumption that it will be completed in future because as per the respondent itself the matter is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court. To prove the same opposite parties have placed on record copy of Civil Written Petition No.26152 of 2015 as Ex.R7. As per our opinion, if the width of the road would have been same as shown in the site plan at the time of sale, the complainant might have constructed the house. The complainant is not constructing the house because it is not confirmed by the opposite party that the width of the road will be increased as per the site plan and how much time it will take. It has been argued by the complainant that construction cost is increasing day by day and they are unable to construct the house.On the other hand, opposite party is demanding maintenance charges without providing the basic facilities i.e. roads etc. We have also perused the maintenance Agreement Ex.C12 and as per Annexure –II at page no.17, it is mentioned that complainant is ready to pay maintenance charges only after completion of development works by company(i.e. roads etc. and other basic services) and the same is duly signed by the complainant. Hence the opposite parties should bound by the terms of maintenance agreement and they are only entitled to demand the same after completion of development work i.e. road etc. The road is not constructed as per approved plan by the opposite parties and they are demanding the maintenance charges from the complainant which is illegal. Moreover complainant has also demanded compensation because as per agreement respondents are bound to pay Rs.15 per month per sq. yards to the complainant, if the possession of plot by providing basic services/amenities not delivered by the respondents till 1 June 2012. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid down in 2023(2)RCR (Civil) of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as Debashish Sinha &Ors. Vs. M/s R.N.R. Enterprise rep. by its Proprietor/chairman, Kolkata &Ors. and 2020(3) R.C.R.(Civil)544 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as titled as Wg.Cdr.Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “Sale of flats by developer-failure to provide promised amenities-compensation has to be paid”. The law cited above are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to withdraw the alleged demand notice dated 06.01.2024 amounting to Rs.96457/- as the same is wrongly issued by the respondents. Opposite parties are further directed not to demand any amount on account of maintenance charges from the complainant till the completion of basic amenities/development work at the site i.e. construction of 24 meter wide road in front of plot no.A19, Sector 36 A, SuncityRohtak. As per sale deed Ex.R8, there is provision of 24M.wide road at the south direction of the plot of complainant. But the same is not constructed till date. Hence as per terms and conditions of agreement, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.15/- per month per sq. yards to the complainant w.e.f. 1 June 2012 till providing basic services/amenities i.e. construction of 24 meter wide road at the south side of the plot of the complainant. It is further directed that till the construction of 24 meter road, opposite party shall provide at least 12 meter road in usable condition to reach at the plot in question of the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony & harassment and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.10.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
