Haryana

Karnal

173/2013

Subhash Chander Maini S/o Ram Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

True Zone Buildwell Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S. Moonak

11 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.173 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.: 04.04.2013

                                                               Date of decision:11.5.2017

 

1. Subhash Chander Maini son of Late Sh. Ram Lal Maini.

2. Inderjit Mehta son of Late Shri Lahori Mal, both resident of House no.373, sector 14, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainants.

                                      Vs.

1. True Zone Buildwell Private Limited, registered office at 8, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi through its Manager, now known as Global Reality Venture Limited, Narsi village, 303, 3rde floor, Global Foyer, Golf Course Road, Sector-34, Gurgaon.

2. True Zone Buildwell Private Limited, Narsi Village through its Manager, Karnal.

 

                                                                                     ……… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

Ms. Veena Rani….Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

                            

Present:-     Shri Rohit Gupta Advocate for the complainants.

                   Shri G.S.Khillan Advocate for opposite parties.

                                       

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that they purchased plot bearing no.157 measuring 300 sq. yards in Narsi Village at Karnal, from the opposite parties, on 15.2.2006 and paid a sum of Rs.5,85,000/- through cheques to the opposite parties. Apart from that the premium amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in case was also paid for the said plot. At the time of allotment of the plot, they were assured by the opposite parties that the possession of the plot would be handed over after completion of roads and other basic amenities; like water, sewerage etc., but the opposite parties did not meet their commitment despite repeated requests. The official of the opposite parties pressurized them to pay the balance amount of the plot, otherwise, the plot would be resumed by illegal and unfair means. The opposite parties issued letter dated 18.3.2007 demanding outstanding amount, though they had failed to provide basic amenities to the complainants. So, the demanded amount was not deposited. No offer of possession was made by the opposite parties. Thus, there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties which caused the complainants mental pain and agony apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and has been filed with malafide intention.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the possession of the plot allotted to the complainants was to be delivered to the complainants only after they made payment of all installments. As per letter dated 15.02.2006, the allotment was only provisional. It was also made clear that if payment was not made within stipulated period as per payment schedule, the allotment  could be cancelled by the company and the amount deposited would be forfeited. It was also clarified that company shall make endeavour to give the possession of the plot within reasonable period subject to force majeure circumstances and reasons beyond the control of the company on receipt of all the installments and all other charges. The complainants failed to make payment of the installments and other charges, therefore in the demand letter it was made clear that if they failed to pay the demanded amount, the allotment could be cancelled and the amount deposited by them could be forfeited. It has further been pleaded that the opposite parties provided all the amenities and would provide the basic amenities before the delivery of possession to the complainants, but they failed to make the payment of the installments and as such they have no right to file such complaint. In this way there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainants, affidavit of Subhash Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C25 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Kamlesh Kumar Ex.OP1/A and documents  Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Admittedly the complainants were allotted plot no.157 measuring 300 square yard by the opposite parties at the basic rate of Rs.6500/- per square yards, vide allotment letter dated 15.2.2006, the copy of which is Ex.C1. The complainants deposited Rs.2,85,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- with opposite parties, vide cheques and receipts, the copies of which are Ex.C2 and C3 were issued by the opposite parties in that regard.

7.                As per condition no.15 of the allotment letter, possession of the plot was to be given by the opposite parties within reasonable period subject to Force Majeure circumstances and the reasons beyond their control, on receipt of all installments and other charges applicable on the plot. Complainants have produced the copies of the letters Ex.C5 to Ex.C11, C18 sent to True Zone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Narsi Village, Karnal requesting for delivery of possession of the plot and they were willing to pay the outstanding amount. However, the opposite parties sent letter Ex.C19 dated 18.3.2007 raising demand of the amount of Rs.17,06,700/-in respect of the installments, which were due. Admittedly, the amount was not paid by the complainants on the ground that no roads were constructed and no basic amenities were provided.

 8.               The affidavit of Main Pal Ex.OP4 is to the effect that the Director General Town and Country Planning has freezed the Zoning of plots no.157 to 163, 316to 320, 382 to 389 and 391, vide memo no.ZP 150/17678 dated 9.7.2007 and the company applied for defreezing the said plots, vide letter dated 8.7.2016. The copy of the letter dated 8.7.2016 sent by the company to Director General Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh has also been produced as Ex.OP2. Thus, it is emphatically clear that Zoning of the plot in question and other 20 plots has been freezed by the Director General Town and Country Planning, therefore, opposite parties are not able to handover the possession of plot no.157 to the complainants.

9.                During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainants submitted that as per the information of the complainants, the plot in question and the other 20 plots would be defreezed by the Director General Town and Country Planning, Haryana in near future and complainants would pay the outstanding dues to the opposite parties at the time of offer of possession after defreezing of the plot by Town and Country Planning Department. Under such circumstances if,  the allotment is cancelled by the opposite parties and the plot is resumed during the period of defreezing of the plot, the complainants would certainly suffer irreparable loss, because defreezing of the plot was not on account of any fault on their part and that must have taken place due to some lapses on the part of the opposite parties and the complainants cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses of the opposite parties. Freezing of the plot by Town and Country Planning Department due to some lapses on the part of the opposite parties caused unnecessary harassment to the complainants.

10.              The plot in question and 20 other plots were freezed by Town and Country Planning Department, vide letter dated 9.7.2007 and the process for  freezing the plots must have been undergoing for sometimes prior to passing of the said order. The opposite parties have led no evidence to establish that the basic amenities for the plot in question and other plots were provided before 18.3.2007. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances the demand raised by the opposite parties, vide letter dated 18.3.2007, was not justified.

11.              In view of abovesaid facts and circumstances, the opposite parties are restrained from cancelling the plot in question allotted to the complainants resuming the same and forfeiting the amounts deposited by the complainants, on the basis of the demand letter dated 18.3.2007. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainants on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by them and for the litigation expenses within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:11.5.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                             (Veena Rani)      (Anil Sharma)

                               Member               Member