Haryana

StateCommission

A/740/2016

OMAXE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD KUMAR JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GUPTA

11 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

                                                                   First Appeal No  :   740 of 2016

Date of Institution:  12.08.2016

                                                                   Date of Decision:   11.09.2017

 

 

1.      Omaxe Limited, Office at 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 through its Managing Director Rohtash Goel.

 

2.      Mukesh Goel, GM Commercial and Project Incharge, Omaxe City, Sonepat, Omaxe Limited, 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

 

3.      Rohtash Goel, Managing Director, Omaxe Limited, Office at 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

 

          Appellants No.1 to 3 through their authorized representative namely Sh. Dheeraj Sharma, Omaxe Limited, Office at 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Vinod Kumar Jain son of Sh. Daulat Ram, resident of 29/205, Dev Nagar, Sonepat.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

Argued by :         Sh. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for the appellants

                   Sh. Naresh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent-complainant

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing this appeal, Omaxe Limited and others-opposite party (for short ‘Builder’) has challenged the order dated May 10^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Vinod Kumar Jain-complainant was allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“In our view, definitely the complainant is entitled to get some suitable compensation on account of interest from the respondents.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to pay lumpsum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation/interest on account of utilizing the huge amount of the complainant without providing him services.

          As far as the demand of respondents for Rs.2,69,322/- is concerned, the respondents are directed to deduct Rs.1,34,550/- and Rs.22,866/- from this amount and to accept the balance amount from the complainant without any interest.

          The respondents are further directed to hand over the physical possession of the plot No.809 in Block F, Omaxe City, Sonepat to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which after expiry of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, the respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the net basic sale price of Rs.9,55,305/- as mentioned in Ex.C-27 till the delivery of the physical possession to the complainant.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.”

 

2.      Initially, the complainant booked Plot No.167, in Omaxe City, Sonepat on November 10^th, 2005.   Lateron, 3-4 times, the plots were changed.  Ultimately, Plot No.809 was allotted to the complainant. Plot Buyers Agreement was executed between the complainant and the builder on February 22^nd, 2013.  As alleged by the complainant, the builder wrongly added Rs.1,34,550/- in the statement of account towards Preferential Location Charges (PLC).  A sum of Rs.40,903/- was also shown as Extra Development Charges (EDC) and Internal Development Charges (IDC), which the complainant was not liable to pay.  The builder also demanded Rs.22,866/- on account of delayed remittance.    

3.      The builder, in its, written version denied the averments of the complaint and pleaded that the plot buyers agreement dated February 22^nd, 2013 was executed between the parties on different terms and conditions.  The total cost of the plot No.809 was Rs.16,54,955/- excluding interest on account of delayed remittance.  The plot of complainant was located on a 24 meter wide road, which came under the segment of Preferential Location.  The complainant was liable to pay PLC.  The complainant was also liable to pay EDC and IDC as mentioned in Clause 11 of the agreement dated February 22^nd, 2013.  The complainant was defaulter in making the payment. 

4.      The only contention raised by learned counsel for the builder is that the District Forum fell in error in granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant.

5.      Submission being convincing.  Plot Buyers Agreement was executed between the parties on February 22^nd, 2013. The development of the plot was to completed within a period of twelve months from the date of signing of the agreement or within an extended period of six months.  Possession Letter (Exhibit C-26) was issued to the complainant on July 07^th, 2014.  Thus, the possession of the plot was offered to the complainant within the stipulated period.  In considered opinion of this Commission, the District Forum fell in error in granting compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant.  It is set aside accordingly.  Except for the modification, the impugned order is upheld.

6.      The appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. 

 

Announced 11.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

    U.K