STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.     Bhim Sain Aggarwal S/o Sh. Uggar Sain, aged 72 years r/o #272,                       Sector 8, Panchkula-134109.

2.     Suksham Aggarwal w/o Sh. Bhim Sain Aggarwal, aged 70 years,              r/o #272, Sector 8, Panchkula-134109.

                                                                  ……Appellants

V E R S U S

Emaar MGF Land Limited, through authorized signatory, Corporate Office, First Floor, SCO No.120-122, Sector-17-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                             …….Respondent

           Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection

                 Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Present :         Mr.Bhim Sain Aggarwal, appellant in person.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                 Smt.Ruchi Sapra purchased a  developed plot of  250 sq.yard  in a project launched by the respondent/Opposite Party in ‘Mohali Hills’ Sector-104, Mohali. The appellants/complainants who are husband and wife purchased the above said plot from the original allottee, as referred to above, on 25.1.2011. Plot Buyer’s Agreement Annexure C-1 dated 22.11.2011 was entered into between the appellants and the respondent.  Total price of the plot was fixed at Rs.52,34,000/- which included preferential location charges and external development charges.  An amount of Rs.5,52,750/- towards external development charges (EDC) was paid in two equated instalments on 31.5.2011 and 29.8.2011.  After development, possession was offered on 14.10.2014. On 17.11.2014, appellant No.1 made request to the Opposite Party to transfer the plot in favour of his wife-appellant No.2. It was done on 18.12.2014, against receipt of transfer charges.  Admittedly conveyance/sale deed stood executed qua the plot in dispute. Towards EDC, OP had charged an excess amount of Rs.2,51,000/-. The said excess amount was adjusted towards stamp duty charges when conveyance deed was executed qua the plot in dispute. Rest of the amount of Rs.1,72,400/- was paid towards stamp duty by the appellants on 1.5.2015. However, when sale deed was not executed, a consumer complaint was filed before the Forum claiming interest on the excess amount paid and issuance of direction to OP to get the conveyance deed executed.  

2.              Upon notice, reply was filed. Territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain the complaint was challenged. It was further stated that the appellants were not consumers as they had purchased the plot for profit/gain in future.  It was further stated that appellant No.1 had already transferred his interest in the plot in dispute in favour of his wife- appellant No.2, as such he cannot file the complaint.  It was further stated that Club charges, Security and other charges were paid by the appellants  on demand vide letter dated 14.10.2014.  It was further stated that on receipt of transfer fee, plot was transferred  in the name of appellant No.2.  It was also averred  that despite request made, appellant No.2 had not turned up to get the conveyance deed executed. It was further disclosed that the respondent/OP had already credited an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- in the account of the appellants towards compensation for delay in handing over possession of the plot.  

3.          To the averments made in the reply, rejoinder was filed by the appellant refuting all averments made by the respondent in the written statement, as referred to above.

4.               Both parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and after hearing arguments,  dismissed the complaint vide order dated 31.8.2016. Hence this appeal.   

 5.             It was found as a matter of fact that when possession was offered, a demand was raised and in response thereto without raising any objection, appellants/complainants deposited a sum of Rs.1,32,895/- with the respondent/OP and an amount of Rs.17,359/-  was paid in favour of Emaar MGF Services Private Limited-A/c Mohali Hills Maint(Collection)’ on 18.11.2014.  The plot was transferred in the name of appellant  on 17.12.2014 on charging transfer fee.  By noting above facts, it was said as under ;

“Thus, it is proved that the payment was completed by the complainants on 1.5.2015.  Annexure C-7 which is a copy of the acknowledgement cum receipt dated 24.9.2015 proves that the OP admitted the receipt of Rs.47,800/- for stamp and registration charges and the instrument date was 22.9.2015.  Annexure C-8 is a copy of the email dated 8.10.2015 which proves that the OP had initiated the process for scheduling an appointment for registration formalities and the said date was to be informed to the complainant. The OP has specifically pleaded in preliminary objection No.9 of its written statement that complainant No.2 has herself gone to America and was not coming forward for execution of the sale deed. The OP has time and again asked complainant No.2 to come present and get the conveyance deed executed, however, she failed to do so and filed the instant complaint.  In their rejoinder, the complainants have not denied about the visit of complainant No.2 to America and even did not specify for how long she stayed there. The OP in para 9 (on merits) of its written statement specifically pleaded that vide email dated 23.11.2015, complainant No.2 was told that 27.11.2015 was fixed as scheduled date for registration of the conveyance deed, but, there was no response from her side and the reply in the rejoinder is evasive.”

6.              It was found as a matter of fact that best efforts were made by the respondent to get the conveyance deed executed.  It was rightly said that there was no deficiency in providing service on the part of respondent in transferring the plot in the name of appellant No.2 and also in getting conveyance deed registered in her favour. It was also noted as a matter of fact that execution of conveyance deed was delayed because appellant No.2  had gone out of country.  On account of delay caused by the appellant in getting the conveyance deed executed, stamp duty charges were increased by the competent authority and for the said increase, rightly, respondent was not held liable by the Forum.  By noting the provisions of buyer’s agreement, it was rightly said by the Forum that as per clause- 22 of the said Agreement, it was incumbent upon the appellants to pay the amount towards Club charges and other charges as claimed by the respondent.  It was also noted that Club Membership was not optional, rather it was mandatory.  It was also found that as per Agreement between the parties, electricity supply charges were rightly claimed by the respondent.  Qua excess charging of EDC, contention raised by the appellants was rightly rejected by the Forum by  observing as under ;

               “No doubt it is argued by the complainants that EDC charges were reduced by the Government of Punjab, as such, they are entitled to refund of the amount because of reduction of the EDC, but, this argument of the complainants is devoid of merit.  EDC charges are paid by the OP with regard to the whole land which includes other infrastructures like roads, club etc. and the OP are to charge EDC from the complainants on the basis of their own calculation and not average basis. Though it is contended by the complainants that the sum of Rs.2,51,000/-, which has been adjusted towards reversed EDC charges, was used by the OP unauthorizedly and the complainants are entitled to interest on the same, but, the EDC charges are increased or decreased from time to time.  In case the EDC charges were reduced and the OP has adjusted that amount, then the complainants are not entitled to interest on the same because the settlement of account was to be made at the time of final adjustment and final payment. A sum of Rs.2,51,000/- has been adjusted on the basis of reduction in the EDC charges and thereafter the EDC charges though were increased, but, the OP did not claim the increased EDC.”

7.             The observation of the Forum, referred to above, is perfectly justified. It was rightly said that no interest is payable to the appellants qua excess charging of amount towards EDC because excess amount was to be adjusted at the time of final settlement of accounts. Qua delay in offering possession of the plot, it was also rightly observed that an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- already stood adjusted in favour of the appellants.  We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Forum is perfectly justified and needs no interference.

8.              For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage,  with no order as to costs. The order of the District  Forum is upheld.

9.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

10.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

17.10.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

Js