DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92
CASE NO-1036/12
Sh. Piyush Atreya
R/O B-506 Sector-6, Aditya Garden,
Vashundra, Ghaziabad.
Complainant
Vs
Mrs. Uma Aggarwal,
Director,
Sunglow Builders Pvt. Ltd,
11, Rajdhani Enclave,
Preet Vihar Metro Station,
Vikas Marg, New Delhi-92.
Opposite Party
DATE OF ADMISSION-29.07.2013
DATE OF ORDER -04.02.2015
SH.N.A ZAIDI,PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the respondent is involved in the business of selling the land/plots, flats, etc. in the name of M/s. Sunglow Builders (P) Ltd. Complainant is the owner of the flat no.B-506. The respondent raised charges of Rs.29,400/- on account of Interest Free Maintenance Charges under an agreement. The conditions were not complied with. On 28.05.11 another agreement was executed between RWA and the respondent. According to the condition no.9, the interest free maintenance security amount was to be returned, the same was not refunded by the respondent despite legal notice on 15.10.11. The complainant has prayed through this complaint for the refund for an amount of Rs.29,400/- with the 21% interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-. Respondent filed their reply wherein they have taken the plea that the complainant is trying to mislead the Forum by concealing the material facts. The complainant himself have failed to pay the maintenance charges to the respondent which was being looked after by the respondent. They have also not paid the electrification charges and an amount of Rs.29,400/- is outstanding. The respondent company had fairly agreed to refund the IFMS to all respective allottee(s) at the time of handing over of maintenance to the Aditya Garden City Residents Welfare Association but some of the individual members failed to pay the arrears of maintenance charges and one time electrification charges. An amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was transferred to RWA. The respondent had entered into settlement with 8 persons who had similarly filed the consumer complaints which were to be withdraw after clearing their dues payable to the respondent company. The complainant is one of those who has to pay some amount to the respondent and he does not want to settle the dues of the respondent. The complainant has not come up before this Forum with clean hands and has mala fide intention of pressurising the respondent company. It is contended that there is no consumer dispute and the complainant is not covered by the definition of the consumer. Rest of the allegations have been denied.
Affidavit in evidence filed by both the parties in support of their respective cases.
Heard and perused the record.
This fact is clear that prior to the agreement with the RWA the up keep of this residential society was being handled by the respondent company which an agreement was entered into on 28.05.11. The respondent counsel is claiming the amount due from the complainant on account of maintenance charges. It is to be seen in the light of the above facts if this could be a consumer dispute when the complainant is asking for the refund of the amount paid by him towards Interest Free Maintenance Charges and this fact is admitted that RWA after 28th of May, 2011 is looking after the maintenance of this residential society. The simple question that arises is as to whether the respondent was under any obligation after the transfer of maintenance to RWA to provide the maintenance to the tenement of the complainant or the complex in question? If there is no element of services to be rendered between the complainant and the respondent, it is for the complainant to prove as to how the present complaint is maintainable before this Forum. The respondent has filed on record along with the affidavit of Mr. Sunil Dhawan, the allotment agreement between the complainant and the respondent. Clause 14.2 says that it is the obligation cast upon the allottee to pay the maintenance charges and to deposit the interest free maintenance security deposit calculated at the rate of Rs.24/- per square fit of the super area of the said flat. This clause also provides the respondent to adjust the amount of the maintenance security if the allottee fails to pay the dues. This agreement also empowered the respondent to charge the interest rate of 9% over the amount due from the allottee. The respondent has clearly asserted that prior to the handing over of the maintenance to the RWA the complainant was an under obligation to pay the maintenance charges which he has not paid. The agreement executed between RWA and the builder has been placed on record which says that they have already refunded the IFMS to the owners and some of them are remaining to be paid as per the decision of the first party. A notice was given to the complainant to pay the due charges from the month of September, 2009 to the Aditya Garden City Resident Welfare Association and raising a demand of Rs.17,600/- which is to be paid to the complainant as dues by 31.08.09. There is not a single document to rebut this demand from the side of the complainant that this amount was not outstanding as against him.
Although this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum but as a matter of equity we direct the respondent to refund to the complainant the balance amount after deducting the amount of Rs.17,600/- from the interest free maintenance security within a period of 45 days from the date of this order. In view of the facts appearing on record we are not making any order towards the cost and compensation.
Let copy of the Judgment be provided to each of the parties free of costs as per rules.
(POONAM MALHOTRA) (N.A.ZAIDI)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
