Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 240.
Instituted on : 04.05.2016.
Decided on : 21.02.2019.
Mrs. Kiran Gupta, Aged 48 years c/o Sh. Jagdeep Sangwan R/o H.No.858/29, Kamal Colony, Model Town, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Project Manager, Suncity Projects, Suncity Township, Sector-35, Rohtak-124001.
- The Director, Suncity Buildcon, Suncity Business Tower, 2nd Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector-54, Gurgaon-122002.
- Mr. Rahul Goyal(Executive Marketing), Suncity Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., LGF-10, Vasant Square, Plot-A, Sector-B, Pocket-V, Community Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Gaurav Bhayana, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Anurag Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that a plot No.A180 measuring 364.71 sq. yards in Block A, at Sector 35 Rohtak was allotted to the complainant by the OPs and till date he has deposited an amount of Rs.1349427/- with the opposite parties towards the payment of the above said plot. That the complainant received a demand letter dated 07.07.2015 whereby they had demanded a total outstanding amount of Rs.1371062/- from the complainant within a period of 15 days otherwise the opposite parties had threatened to cancel the allotment of plot and to deduct the earnest money amount of Rs.164120/- and further threatened to refund the amount of Rs.1183308/- to the complainant. That opposite parties had offered the possession of the plot whereas there was no infrastructure at the spot. That by demanding the balance EDC/IDC, balance amount and offering the possession without providing the basic infrastructure is a clear cut case of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. That the demand notice dated 7.7.2015 is illegal and not binding on the rights of the complainant. That a legal notice dated 07.01.2016 has already been served by the complainant to the opposite parties but till date the respondents have not settled the claim of the complainant. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the deposited amount of Rs.1349427/- with the opposite parties and to adjust the same in the actual cost of the plot, not to cancel the allotment of plot and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties who appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant alongwith Mr. Vaibhav Gupta had applied for the above said plot on 16.07.2009 and had deposited the amount of Rs.147000/- and Rs.1202427/-. That on 25.02.2012 OPs has issued a demand letter of Rs.770633/- which include EDC, IDC and 5% of BSP. But the same was not paid by the complainant till date. That on 17.12.2012 OPs have offered the possession of said plot but the complainant has failed to pay the due amount in given time. That several notice-cum-reminders were issued to the complainant and Mr. vaibhav Gupta for making the payment of outstanding balance amount but they did not turn up to pay the due amount. That complainant sent a reply to final notice dated 7.7.2015 and advised to provide basic services of water and sewerage before offer of possession and asking for interest on her payment. That in response of the same, OPs issued a letter dated 28.09.2015 and told the complainant that all development work has completed by them and they have already offered possession on 17.12.2012 and there is no delay in offer of possession on their part. That all the basic amenities and infrastructure are available in Sector and some of plot allottee’s have already taken the possession of their plots. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R18 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. During the pendency of complaint, an application for pecuniary jurisdiction was filed by the complainant which was decided vide order dated 22.09.2017 by this Forum. Against the said order, opposite party filed a revision petition before the Hon’ble State Commission which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula vide their order dated 26.07.2018 and it was held that since there was no controversy or prayer or relief with respect to the plot hence the price of plot cannot be counted and the pecuniary jurisdiction vests with the District Forum.
6. In the present complaint as per the agreement Ex.C1, the basic cost of the plot is Rs.1094130/- plus other charges as like EDC, IDC etc. The area of the plot is 364.71sq. yards (304.941sq.mtr), meaning thereby Rs.3000/- per sq.yard. It is an admitted fact by both the parties that the complainant had already deposited an amount of Rs.1349427/- against the plot in dispute. In this amount the complainant had already paid 90% BSP plus Rs.1000/- per sq. yard EDC and whole amount had already been paid by the complainant upto 30.11.2009. An agreement Ex.C1 was signed between the parties on dated 21.05.2010 and as per clause No.15 of the agreement, it is mentioned that: “The company shall make its all efforts to complete the internal development of the Township within apporx. 12(twelve) months from the date of signing of this allotment agreement of the Plot or from the sanctioning of all services plans of the entire township whichever is later, subject to force majeure clause”. In this way, the respondent officials should handed over the possession to the complainant after completing all the basic amenities within 12 months but the respondent officials failed to deliver the same. As per the respondents they wrote letter dated 25.02.2012 Ex.R7 to the complainant and through this letter they demanded an amount of Rs.770633/- on account of installments equivalent to 5% of the plot, EDC charges @ Rs. 1711/-per sq. yds. and infrastructural development charges @ Rs.252/- per sq.yds. In this way the total amount of Rs.770633/- has been demanded through this letter. But perusal of the document shows that no receipt has been placed on record by the respondent officials to prove that this letter has been delivered to the complainant.
7. An another letter Ex.R8 was also allegedly delivered to the complainant on dated 17.12.2012 and through this letter they also offered the possession of the residential plot to the complainant and also demanded an outstanding amount of Rs.661220/- from the complainant and through this letter the respondent officials also gave a concession/discount on EDC charges i.e. amounting to Rs.182355/-. In this way, there is a variation of demanding the amount from the complainant in both the letters itself. This letter Ex.R8 is also not supported by any postal receipts. Therefore, some letters were also wrote by the respondent officials to the complainant vide Ex.R9 to Ex.R14. Ex.R9 was written on dated 04.04.2014 whereas Ex.R8 was written by the respondent officials on dated 17.12.2012. The respondent officials have not written any letter to the complainant between 17.12.2012 to 04.04.2014. It is crystal clear from the letter dated 17.12.2012 that the respondent officials offered the possession of the residential plot to the complainant but this letter is not supported by any postal receipt meaning thereby the respondent officials falsely claiming in letter dated 04.04.2014 (Ex.R9) that they had already offered the possession of plot to the complainant a long back. The respondent official also placed on record Ex.R10 to Ex.R14, some letters in which a statement of account is also enclosed. The perusal of this statement shows that the remaining amount towards the complainant is 5% BSP + EDC/IDC @ Rs.2963/- per sq.yds and 5% BSP plus IFMS @ Rs.50/- per sq. yds. Meaning thereby a total amount of Rs.843574/- is still outstanding against the complainant when we consider the EDC/IDC as Rs.2963/- per sq. yds. The complainant had already paid the EDC charges @ Rs.1000/- per sq. yds with the 90% basic cost of the plot. The respondent officials imposed a huge interest upon the complainant on account of delay or non payment of basic price and EDC etc.
8. The perusal of the statement Ex.R10 itself shows that an amount of Rs.331686/- were imposed as interest @ 24% p.a.. In this way as per Ex.R10 an amount of Rs.1175260/- is still outstanding after considering the interest clause. As per Ex.R11 dated 21.08.2014 an amount of Rs.1193565/- is still outstanding and in this amount Rs.349991/- is interest. In this way some more statements were also annexed by the respondents in their evidence. In the present complaint the complainant’s prayer is that the respondent may kindly be directed to provide the basic amenities of potable drinking water, storm water disposal and the facilities of sewerage system and thereafter opposite parties should ask for the remaining outstanding payment from the complainant. It is further prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to pay an interest @ 24% p.a. on the deposited amount till the offer of possession.
9. In the present complaint we came to the conclusion that the respondent officials alleged that they had offered the possession of the residential plot to the complainant vide letter dated 17.12.2012 i.e. Ex.R8, but this letter is not supported with postal or courier receipt, meaning thereby this letter was never delivered to the complainant and actual physical possession was never offered to the complainant. Moreover, the respondent has also failed to place on record any document to show that they had already provided the basis amenities e.g. sewerage system, potable drinking water facility, storm water disposal etc. to the plot holders or to the complainant.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the complainant to deposit the remaining basic cost of the plot(BSP) and EDC & IDC charges without any interest and penalty to the opposite parties within two months from the date of decision. On the other hand, opposite parties are directed to hand over the physical possession of the plot after providing all the basic amenities at the spot i.e. potable drinking water, storm water disposal and the facilities of sewerage system etc. as mentioned in the complaint without charging any interest or penalty from the complainant and shall also pay a sum of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within two months from the date of decision. Opposite parties are further directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount(90% Basic sale price) from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.05.2016 till its actual realization to the complainant as there is considerable delay on the part of opposite parties for not handing over the possession of the plot.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
12. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.02.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
………………………………
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
