Haryana

StateCommission

A/768/2017

OMAXE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

USHA GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GUPTA

22 Jul 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First Appeal No.768 of  2017

Date of the Institution:23.06.2017

Date of Decision:  22.07.2022

 

M/s Omaxe Ltd., 7 Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019 through its Managing Director/Chairman through its authorized signatory namely Sh.Deepanjit Singh S/o Sh.Satwant Singh M/s Omaxe Ltd., 7, LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

                                                                   .….Appellant

Versus

1.      Smt. Usha Gupta W/o Sh.Surender Gupta, R/o H.No.173 of 2017, Vijay Nagar, Rohtak.

2.      M/s Jain Associates, 1062, A/19, Hari Nagar, Rohtak-124001 (Haryana).

                                                          .….Respondents

 

CORAM:   Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mr.Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Munish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                    This appeal is directed against the order dated May 24^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak  (for short ‘District Commission’), whereby  the complaint filed by present respondent No.1 was allowed.

2.                The brief facts of the complaint goes like that he applied for a plot measuring 1000 sq. yards with opposite party (OP.) No.1 through OP No.2. The basic sale price of the plot was Rs.28,00,000/-.The amount of Rs.1,80,000/- as PLC, Rs.45,000/- as Additional Charges and Rs.10,00,000/- as EDC have been charged for the full and final payment of the plot No.94.  The total amount of the plot was Rs.40,25,000/-,which was to be paid in four installments as per letter dated 07.10.2010.   On 05.01.2020, 26.02.2010 and 29.06.2010, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, 12,00,000/- and Rs.12,60,000/- respectively  and balance amount was agreed to be paid at the time of possession. However despite the OPs had not obtained the necessary permission from the competent authority, still they illegally and malafidely demanded an amount of Rs.1950/- per square yards as EDC and IDC charges vide letter dated 20.05.2011. Since the OP No.1 has already received EDC charges from him as per schedule i.e. Rs.1000/- per sq. yard, therefore opposite party has no right to charge the increased rate as Rs.950/- per sq. yard. Further complainant alleged that he paid all the charges as per the allotment letter, but, OP No.1 vide letter dated 20.05.2011 illegal demanded Rs.9,50,000/- as EDC and IDC. Face with all the he served a legal notice however OP No.1 refused to relent. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.      Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written version.  OP No.1 in its reply submitted that as per clause 10 of the application, the complainant had agreed to bear all statutory charges, taxes and external development charges etc.  and later on the external development charges (EDC) were enhanced by the concerned authorities from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2357/- per sq. yard.   As per the meeting with DC Rohtak on 30.04.2011 and 10.05.2011 in the presence of plot owners, it was agreed that OPNO.1shall offer a concession of Rs.407/- per sq. Yard from the chargeable EDC of Rs.2357/- and customer shall pay EDC @ Rs.1950/- per sq. Yards without any interest within a period of 30 days. The OP No.1 vide letter dated 12.05.2011 demanded for payment of enhanced EDC, but, the complainant did not pay the same. Further it was submitted that OP No.1 has developed and completed the said project after taking all necessary approvals and license from the competent authority.  Legal notice dated 17.06.2011 was duly responded vide reply dated 25.07.2011.  It was the complainant who has failed to clear the balance outstanding amount.

4.      OP No.2 in its reply submitted that answering OP was only the  authorized broker of the deal. All the terms and conditions were settled between the complainant and opposite party No.1.  There was no role of answering opposite party. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Rohtak has partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 24.05.2017, relevant observation is as under:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party no.1 is directed as under:-

1. Opposite Party No.1 shall declare the letter dated 20.05.2011 as illegal and shall not demand any amount on account of EDC and IDC charges.
2. Opposite Party No.1 shall only charge the balance amount of Rs.180000/- from the complainant as shown in payment schedule Ex.C-1 without any interest and shall deliver the offer the possession of plot within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party no.1 shall be liable to pay punitive damages of Rs.400/- (Rupees Four hundred only) per day to the complainant from dated 24.06.2017.
3. Opposite party No.1 shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.
4. Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite party No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned order.

7.      This argument has been advanced by Sh. Munish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire record of appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that learned District Commission was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the complaint as the total cost of the plot was Rs.40,25,000/- and the complainant had paid Rs.36,00,000/- to the appellant. The learned District commission ignored the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission passed in case titled as ‘Ambrish Kumar Shukla & others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited, while passing the impugned order.  The demand made by the OP No.1/appellant with regard to enhance EDC/IDC was justified as authorities have raised demand to the extent of Rs.2357/- per square yard but with the intervention of DC, Rohtak, the same was reduced and now the payment was to be paid @ Rs.1950/- per square yard. Therefore, the demand raised qua enhanced EDC and IDC was justified. Thus, the complainant was not entitled for the amount as prayed for.

9.      It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the plot from opposite party No.1 through OP No.2. It is also admitted that  as per Ex.C-1 total cost of the plot was Rs.40,25,000/- including all the charges.  The basic price of the plot was Rs.28,00,000/-. Learned District Commission was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the complaint as the total cost of the plot was Rs.40,25,000/-  including all the charges and the complainant has paid Rs.36,00,000/- to the  appellant. The learned District Commission has also ignored the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission passed in case titled as ‘Ambrish Kumar Shukla & others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited, while passing the impugned order.  The demand made by the OP No.1/appellant with regard to enhance EDC/IDC is justified as meeting was held between the company’s officials and representative of the plot owners in the aforesaid project in the gracious presence of the DC, Rohtak,  thereafter, the appellant company vide letter dated 12.05.2011 shall offer a concession to the customer of Rs.407/- from the chargeable EDC of Rs.2357/-  and to pay EDC @ Rs.1950/- per sq. yds of the allotted plot without any interest within a period of 30 days from the date of this letter.   Learned District Commission while allowing the complaint ignoring all these aspects and without going into the documents produced on record, clearly fell in error which cannot be endorsed.  Hence, the impugned order dated  24.05.2017 is set aside.  The appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

10.    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.

 

July 22nd, 2022     Suresh Chander Kaushik,                   S.P.Sood

                             Member                                              Judicial Member                                 

S.K.(Pvt.Secy)