Haryana

Karnal

CC/48/2021

Anita Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHD Developers Limited - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No. 48 of 2021

                                                      Date of instt.25.01.2021

                                                      Date of Decision:06.10.2023

 

Anita Devi aged 52 years wife of Shri Sunil Kumar, resident of house no. 493/5 Nasib Vihar Colony, Gharaunda (Karnal). Aadhar card no.2669-5981-3696.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

1. CHD Developers Ltd. SF 16-17, 1^st floor Madame Bhikaji, Cama Bhawan 11 Bhikaji Complex, New Delhi-11066 throgh its representative Mr. Swatantra Saxena (A.S.)

 

2. CHD Developers Ltd. having its site office at behnd Dana Pani, NH-1, Sector-45, G.T. Road, Uchana District Karnal through its Branch Sales Manager Mr. Nalin Chhabra.

 

3. CHD Developers Ltd. having its sight office at behind Dana Pani, NH1, Sector-45, G.T. Road, Uchana District Karnal through its CFM head CHD City Karnal Mr. Harish Sethi.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

                   

Argued by: Sunil Kumar husband of complainant in person.

                   Shri Amit Gupta, counsel for the OP no.1.

                   OPs no.2 and 3 exparte (vide orders dated

           15.09.2021 and 05.07.2023)

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, president)

ORDER:   

 

              The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant alongwith her husband Mr. Sunil Kumar purchased a plot no.23ZD 318 having area measuring 237.77 sq. mtrs, situated at Sector-45, CHD City Karnal. The total sale consideration of the said plot was Rs.24,22,500/- excluding stamp duty. On 19.12.2017, a plot buyer’s agreement was executed between the complainant and the OPs. At the time of sale, the sales manager Mr. Nailn Chhabra told that the complainant has to pay Rs.3/- per sq. feet pm+taxes as maintenance charges of the total area. The complainant may pay these charges on quarterly basis till the deponent is the owner of the plot/residence. And the complainant will have to pay Rs.150/- per sq. feet as a security/IFMS of the total area. OPs also told the complainant that his security is refundable if in future she sells the plot. As per their directions, complainant paid maintenance charges upto October,2020 and Rs.42750/-security through NEFT on 01.12.2017 with OPs. The complainant paid all the dues to the directorate of urban local bodies, Haryana.

2.             It is further averred that in October, 2020, complainant sold out the said plot. Thereafter, complainant met with sales Manager and requested to refund the security/IFMS amount i.e. Rs.42750/- but he refused to pay the same by saying that now company’s policy has changed. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times to OPs in written on 23.10.2020, 27.11.2020 and 15.12.2020 in this regard but OPs have not given any response. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has purchased a residential plot bearing no.Z/D-318 measuring 237.77sq. meters from the OP for a sale consideration of Rs.10,188-42P per sq. meter plots other applicable charges.  As per terms of allotment, the complainant was also liable to deposit IFMS at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq. yard and maintenance charges at the applicable rate in respect of the plot purchased by her.  The complainant deposited Rs.42750/- on account of IFMS charges. The said charges are deposited by allottee/buyer in respect of plot situated at CHD city, which is non-refundable. The amount of IFMS charges, forms part of the total cost of the plot and as such, as and when any person sells/transfers a plot owned by him/her, the said amount of IFMS charges are recouped by the said seller from the buyer of the said plot. The complainant got a conveyance deed in respect of the plot in question on 19.12.2017. It is further pleaded that the plot in question sold by the complainant to some other person and as such, it was for the complainant to recover/recoup the amount of IFMS deposited by her from the said purchaser. The amount of IFS deposited by the complainant continues to lie deposited against the plot in question and the same cannot be refunded to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 15.09.2021 of the Commission.

5.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as per para no.16 of Plot Buyer’s Agreement, “The purchaser shall also pay to the company such charges as may be determined by the company and/or the maintenance agency appointed by the company for maintaining various services/facilities in the said colony including expenses incurred for making arrangements for sanitation, street light, area security, water supply and its distribution systems until the same are not handed over to the local body for maintenance.  The purchaser shall deposit with the company a sum of Rs.150/- per sq. yards, by way of interest free maintenance security to ensure such payment by him, which forms a part of agreement and is payable by the purchaser to the company on demand. In case of default in payment of aforesaid charges by the purchaser, the company shall entitled to recover the same by way of appropriation from the aforesaid security deposit and balance, if any, in the security deposit account shall be refunded to the purchaser as the time of handing over the service to the local body. It is further pleaded that complainant is not entitled for security amount as per clause of 16 of Plot Buyer’s Agreement. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

7.             Complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 and closed the evidence on 01.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurinder Singh Ex.OP1/A, copy of conveyance deed dated 19.12.2017 Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 17.05.2023.

9.             On 05.07.2023, the case was fixed for concluding the evidence of OP no.3 subject to third last opportunity but none has put into appearance on behalf of OP no.3, hence exparte proceeding was initiated against OP no.3.      

10.           We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

11.           Husband of complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently submitted that his wife purchased the plot in question in CHD City Karnal. A Plot’s Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties. As per direction of the OPs, complainant paid maintenance charges upto October,2020 and on 01.12.2017, complainant has also deposited Rs.42750/-as security. He further submitted that complainant sold out the said plot and met with sales Manager of the OPs and requested to refund the security/IFMS amount i.e. Rs.42750/- but he refused to refund the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

12.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant deposited Rs.42750/- on account of IFMS charges, which is non-refundable and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

13.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

14.           Admittedly, complainant purchased the plot in question from the OPs. It is also admitted that complainant deposited Rs.42,750/- as IFMS charges.

15.           The complainant has alleged that the she had deposited the IFMS charges, which is refundable, if she sold the plot. In October, 2020, complainant sold out the said plot and thereafter complainant requested the OPs to refund the security/IFMS amount i.e. Rs.42750/- but OPs refused to refund the same.  The onus to prove her case was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove her case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. To prove her case, complainant has tendered only her affidavit Ex.C1 and no other documents have been tendered by the complainant in the evidence. In the Plot Buyer Agreement, it is nowhere mentioned that the complainant is entitled for refund of IFMS charges at the time of selling the plot in question to other buyer.

16.           The complainant has already sold out the plot in question to the other buyer and all the rights has been transferred with the plot. At the time of the selling the plot, the complainant could have charged the above charges from the buyer. It is also not proved on the file that the services have been handed over to the Local Body by the OPs. Now the complainant has sold the plot in question and thus complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

17.           Thus, in view of the above, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 06.10.2023

                                                                President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member