Haryana

StateCommission

A/1296/2016

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNITA JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY GHANGAS

18 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                       

First Appeal No  :      1296 of 2016

Date of Institution:     29.12.2016

Date of Decision :      18.08.2017

 

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Sushant City, Panipat through its Authorized Representative Sh. Chinmoy Bera.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

1.      Sunita Jain wife of Sh. Rajender Kumar Jain

2.      Rishab Jain son of Sh. Rajender Kumar Jain

          Both residents of House No.39, Adarsh Nagar, Panipat.

                                      Respondents-Complainants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.                                   

 

Present:               Shri Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Sandeep Malik, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited-opposite party (for short ‘Builder’) is in appeal against the order dated October 14^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Sunita Jain and his son Rishab Jain-complainants was allowed. For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“6.     So, in our view the respondents have wrongly charged the interest upon the EDC from the complainant and definitely the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the same from the respondents.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of interest which was charged by the respondents on the EDC and the said amount is directed to be paid to the complainant within a period of thirty days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the said amount shall fetch interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its actual realization.  The parties concerned be communicated of the said order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

 

2.      Firstly a few admitted facts. The builder entered into an agreement dated February 27^th, 2010 (Annexure A-1) with M.K.R Construction Private Limited, which was transferred in the name of the complainants. The agreement pertains to Plot No.F-2519, admeasuring 405 sq. yards/338.25 sq. metres approximately, at the rate of Rs.1603/- per square yard (Rs.1917/- per sq. metre) Sushant City, Panipat.   

3.      Per Clause 2 of the agreement, apart from the price of the flat, the buyer was to pay Extra Development Charges (EDC) at the rate of Rs.1495 per sq. metre/Rs.1250/- per square yard as per Schedule II annexed with the agreement.

4.      Schedule II reads as under:-

SCHEDULE II
Payment of Extra Development Charges
1.	Within 30 days of booking		Rs……….
		OR
1.	Within 1 months of booking		Rs.63,210.47
2.	Within 3 months of booking		Rs.63,210.47
3.	Within 5 months of booking		Rs.63,210.47
4.	Within 7 months of booking		Rs.63,210.47
5.	Within 9 months of booking		Rs.63,210.47
6.	Within 11 months of booking		Rs.63,210.47
7.	Within 13 months of booking		Rs.63,210.47
8.	Within 15 months of booking		Rs.63,210.47

 

5.      The total amount of EDC comes to Rs.5,05,683.8.  It is not in dispute that there was any default on the part of the complainants in paying the amount of EDC as per Schedule II. 

6.      The only plea raised by learned counsel for the builder is that on the amount of EDC, that is, Rs.5,05,683.8, the complainants were liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum, which they did because the builder entered into an agreement dated September 22^nd, 2006 (Annexure A-4) with the Government of Haryana through Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. 

7.      As per clause 1 (b) i) of the agreement (Annexure A-4), the builder was to EDC to Haryana Urban Development Authority through the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana either in lump sum within 30 days from the date of grant of licence or in eight equal six monthly installments of 12.5% each, that is, first installment was to be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of grant of licence and balance 87.5% in seven equal six monthly installments alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum which was to  be charged on unpaid portion of the amount. 

8.      On the basis of this agreement (Annexure A-4), the builder demanded the interest at the rate of 15% on the installments EDC vide demand notice (Exhibit C-6).

9.      Learned counsel for the builder has fairly conceded at bar that there is no clause in the agreement (Annexure A-1) that at any point of time, the complainants were liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% on the installments of EDC rather he has stated that the complainants had paid the installments as per the Schedule II.  Not only that, the entire amount had been paid by the complainants and the conveyance deed had also been executed.  Since the amount of EDC was paid by the complainants to the builder as per Schedule II, so, question of charging the interest on the basis of agreement whatsoever executed between the builder and Government of Haryana is not warranted.

10.    For the reasons recorded supra, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

11.    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 the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 18.08.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK