Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/94/2015

Col S K Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Emaar MGF Land Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A S Walia

08 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/94/2015
Date of Institution	:	11/02/2015
Date of Decision	:	08/03/2016

 

 

1. Colonel SK Malhotra, son of Maj. C.L. Malhotra, resident of D-57, Army Flats, MDC, Sector 4, Panchkula.
2. Ms. Krishna Malhotra, wife of Colonel SK Malhotra, resident of H.No.D-57, Army Flats, MDC, Sector 4, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Emaar MGF Land Limited, SCO 120-122, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

…Opposite Party

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. A.S. Walia, Counsel for complainants
	:	Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Counsel for OP

                       

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Col. S.K. Malhotra (husband) and Smt. Krishna Malhotra (wife), complainants have filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Emaar MGF Land Limited, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that they were allotted a residential unit No.J3-F-504, in Tower No.J, having super built area of 1750 sq. ft., in the project of the OP, namely “The Views”,  Mohali, Punjab and the basic sale price  of the said unit was Rs.51,62,500/-. According to the complainants, despite making payment of the entire sale consideration, including the miscellaneous, registration and stamp charges, the OP failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question, what to speak of registration of sale deed thereof. It has been averred that not only this, the OP had also charged Rs.56,180/- as club membership charges from the complainants despite the fact that there is no club in existence till date and further that the same could not be charged until the possession of the flat is physically handed over to the complainants and the club becomes functional.  It has been stated that the complainants requested the OP to refund the amount of Rs.6 lacs, paid by them for the registration of sale deed in respect of the unit in question, so that they could get the same done of their own, but, it failed to do so. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, the OP has taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complainants are not consumers.  It has been admitted that the apartment in question was allotted to the complainants. It has been averred that the complainants delayed certain payments on account of which delayed payment interest was levied in their account. It has been stated that the intimation of possession letter was issued to the complainants on 16.8.2013 and settlement of final dues was issued to them on 28.11.2013.  On clearance of dues by the complainants and after joint inspection by both the parties, the complainants were issued possession offer letter dated 3.3.2014, but, they refused to take possession on one pretext or the other. The complainants finally, during the pendency of the complaint, took possession of the flat on 16.3.2015. It has been contended that the payment of amount towards the stamp duty had been paid by the complainants as per the buyer agreement on their own without any protest.  It has further been contended that the club charges are payable as per the agreed terms and conditions of the buyer agreement and that out of the total amount, only 50% of the amount towards club charges had been demanded and paid. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         In their rejoinder, complainants have controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated their own.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         In the present case, the OP had initially raised an objection in respect of the complainants being not ‘consumer’ as they had applied for more than one plot for the purpose of investment instead of housing. This objection has already been ruled out by the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 20.8.2015 in Revision Petition No.31 of 2015 stating that the said plot could not have been purchased for investment, therefore, there is no illegality or material irregularity warranting interference of the Hon’ble State Commission and the case was remanded back to this Forum.
7.         In the main complaint filed by the complainants, the main grievance is in respect of refund of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum, issuance of direction to the OP to hand over the possession of the plot immediately to them and also for refund of the amount of Rs.56,180/- charged by the OP as club charges in absence of any club apart from compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. Out of the above, during the pendency of the present complaint, the OP admittedly has already handed over the possession of the plot to the complainants. So far as the refund of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest is concerned, the OP has clearly stated that the complainants have already taken possession of the plot in question and it is ready to execute the sale deed  after the complainants complete the necessary formalities.  Since the complainants have already paid this amount to the OP, therefore, the entire cost of registration of the plot in question in toto has to be borne by the OP. On the same lines, the OP has charged a sum of Rs.56,180/- towards club charges. However, admittedly there is no club in existence in the colony developed by the OP, therefore, charging club fee in absence of any club is in itself an unfair trade practice.
8.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP is directed as under :-

(i)     To get the sale deed of the flat executed entirely at its own cost without charging any amount from the complainants within a period of 45 days, failing which the OP shall refund an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till payment.

(ii)    To refund the club charges of Rs.56,180/- to the complainants;

(iii)   To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainants;

(iv)   To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainants. 

9.         This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) & (iii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iv) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/03/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member