Haryana

StateCommission

RP/11/2016

MATRIX BUILDWELL PVT.LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

TAMANNA SIDHU - Opp.Party(s)

DEV DUTT SHARMA

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

Revision Petition No:    11 of 2016

Date of Institution:        22.01.2016

Date of Decision :         14.03.2016  

 

M/s Matrix Buildwell Private Limited (SS Group), Corporate Office at Plot No.77, Sector-44, Gurgaon-122003, through its authorized representative Shri Roop Kumar Sharma.

                             Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Mrs. Tamanna Sidhu wife of Shri Gurpinder Sidhu, Resident of Flat No.701, Tower B, Block-2, Delight & Splendours, Freedom Park Life, Sector-57, Gurgaon.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      M/s Countrywide Promoters Private Limited, Registered Office at: M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001, Through its Managing Director.

3.      M/s B.P.T.P. Limited, Registered Office: M-11 Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001, through its Chairman/Managing Director.

Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

Present:               Shri Sidhant Goyal, proxy for Shri Dev Dutt Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated December 14^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’), in Execution Application No.134 of 2014.

2.      Tamanna Sidhu-Complainant (respondent No.1 herein) is the owner and in possession of Flat No.701, Floor 7^th Tower –B, Block 2, Freedom Park Life, Sector-57, Gurgaon. The flats were constructed by M/s Matrix Build Well Pvt. Ltd. (for short ‘Matrix Build Well’). ‘FLAT BUYER’S AGREEMENT’ (Annexure C-1) was entered into between Matrix Build Well and the complainant. As per Clause 1.1 regarding the Consideration and other conditions, the total consideration of the flat was Rs.49,58,800/- inclusive of current External Development Charges (for short ‘EDC’) as levied by the Haryana Government at the rate of Rs.105/- per square feet of the super area of the said premises. Besides, the owners of the flat were to pay Rs.50,000/- as Club Membership Charges (for short ‘CMC’) in lump-sum and Interest Free Non-Refundable Maintenance Security (for short ‘IFMS’) at the rate of Rs.50/- per square feet of super area, in addition to the consideration of Rs.49,58,800/-. The Matrix Build Well charged EDC at the rate of Rs.156/- per square feet of the super area over and above the amount of Rs.105/- per square feet already added in the sale consideration (as per the order of the Haryana Government). The complainant paid the extra amount, but under protest, in order to take the possession of the flat. Since the additional EDC of Rs.156/- was arbitrarily charged by the Matrix Build Well, complainant filed the complaint No.417 of 2011 before the District Forum.

3.      Vide order dated September 16^th, 2013, the District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that being re-allottee, the complainant was not the ‘consumer’ of the Matrix Build Well.

4.      The complainant filed appeal No.761 of 2013 before this Commission. The appeal was disposed of vide order dated January 8^th, 2014. The operative part of the order is as under:-

“3.     During the course of hearing learned counsel for Matrix Build Well, on the instructions sought from them, has made a statement at bar that the EDC charged at the rate of Rs.156/- per square feet, that is, over and above of the EDC already included in the sale consideration, was charged in excess and the Matrix Build Well is ready to pay the amount charged in excess so far as the EDC amount is concerned. In the face of it, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant is satisfied if the said amount of EDC charged, that is, Rs.156/- per square feet by Matrix Build Well is returned to them by way of draft within one month from the date of receipt of this order and as such do not press their complaint.

4.      In view of the above, it is ordered that Matrix Build Well shall pay the amount of EDC charged in excess of the amount already charged as per the agreement. The Matrix Build Well shall execute the conveyance/transfer/sale deed, in favour of the appellant within sixty days. It is clarified that in case the excess amount is not paid by the Matrix Build Well within thirty days on receipt of this order, the Matrix Build Well shall pay 10% interest on the amount to be paid”.

5.      Since, the Matrix Build Well did not execute the conveyance-deed, the complainant filed Execution Application No.134 of 2014.

6.      During the hearing of execution application, plea was raised on behalf of Matrix Build Well that since Collector Rates have been increased, so the conveyance-deed was not executed.

7.      Indisputably, an amount of Rs.3,07,700/- was already deposited by the complainant for the Stamp Duty and Registration Charges. No notice was sent by Matrix Build Well that Collector Rates have been increased. In view of this, the District Forum vide impugned order directed the Matrix Build Well as under:-

“….to meet the ends of justice and keeping in view the principle of equity, we direct the OP-JD Matrix Build Well to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount which has been received by the OP-JD towards stamp and registration charges i.e. Rs.3,07,700/- from the date of receipt till the deposit of requisite stamp duty which shall be deposited by the complainants-DHs within 30 days.”

8.      The petitioner/ Matrix Build Well, has challenged the impugned order taking plea that they were not liable to pay any interest on the amount already deposited towards the stamp duty and conveyance-deed and registration charges.

9.      It is not disputed that vide order dated January 8^th, 2014, passed by this Commission, the petitioner/Matrix Build Well was directed to execute the conveyance-deed within 60 days but it did not execute the conveyance-deed till date. Only objection raised was that the complainant had not paid the additional stamp duty on account of revision in the Circle Rates/Collector Rates, revised by Collector for registration of conveyance-deed.  

10.    Learned counsel for the petitioner/ Matrix Build Well was not able to point out that they had raised any issue or made any payment for additional stamp duty on account of revision in the Circle Rates.

11.    Undisputedly, the Matrix Build Well has been utilizing the amount already deposited by the complainant towards the execution of conveyance-deed and registration charges. Therefore, this Commission feels that the District Forum did not commit any illegality by directing the petitioner/Matrix Build Well, to pay interest @ 9% per annum, as certainly it (Matrix Build Well) did not comply with the order dated January 8^th, 2014 passed by this Commission to execute the conveyance-deed within 60 days. In view of this, no case for interference is made out.

12.    Hence, the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

 

Announced: 14.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL