District Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.264/2022.
Date of Institution: 17.05.2022.
Date of Order: 11.01.2023
KishanChand son of Late Sh. Pritam Singh R/o Village Daultabad, P.O. Sector-16A, Faridabad, Haryana
Versus
M/s. BPTP Ltd.,M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus,New Delhi-110001Through its Managing Director (s)/ Principal Officer (s)
2nd Address: The Resort, Parklands, Sector-89, Neharpar, Faridabad .
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: AmitArora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Complainant with Sh. Satbir Sharma Advocate.
Sh. Jay Shankar, AR on behalf of opposite parties.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant booked one EWS flat with the respondent at their project at Park Grandeura, Sector-82, Faridabad and the complainant deposited initial amount with the respondent againstreceipt dated 13.12.2011 duly issued by the respondent to the complainant. Thereafter the respondent asked the complainant to deposit further payments from time to time and accordingly the complainant deposited the said amount with the respondent very much within time and in lieu thereof, the respondent allotted Unit No.303, having an area of 200 Sq. feet, in Sector-82, Faridabad at Park Grandeura, Faridabad, vide allotment Letter dated 16.09.2014. Thereafter, from time to time the complainant gave the respondent different times and has paid the respondent a huge amount. Inspite of making the payment of all requisite amounts by the complainant, the respondent did not deliver the possession of the allotted flat to the complainant till date. Whereas the complainant approached the respondent several times to deliver the possession thereof, but the respondent always avoided it on one pretext or the other. Instead of delivering the possession of the allotted flat to the complainant, the respondent was claiming surcharge from the complainant in a wrongful manner, for which the respondent has no right to do so. The complainant was not having his own property and at present he had been residing in rented premises and has been suffering a huge loss, for which the respondent is solely responsible. The complainant again and again approached the respondent to deliver the possession of original allotted flat to the complainant and not to raise demand of any excess payment wrongly and illegally but the respondent always avoided it on one pretext or the other. The complainant sent legal notice dated 22.04.2022to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
i. handover the possession of Unit No.303, having an area of 200 Sq. feet, in Sector-82, Faridabad at Park Grandeura, Faridabad to the complainant and getit registered with the registrar of assurances at an earliest.
ii. pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation forharassment, mental agony and suffering caused to the complainant.
iii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the respondent.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the Department of Town & Country Planning, Haryana granted licenses to the private colonizers under the provisions of Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975 for development of residential plotted and group housing colonies. It is further submitted that the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning department in accordance with Memo No. LC-147-7/16/2006-2TCP dated 03.02.2010, issued guidelines for allotment of plots/flats earmarked for Economical Weaker Section (EWS)/lower income group category in the Licensed Colony, which was later supersession vide Memo No. LC-147-7/16/2006-2TCP dated 08.07.2013, which was also later supersession vide Memo No. LC-147- 7/16/2006-2TCP/14950 dated 17.05.2018 by the concerned department, whereby the licensee would reserve 15 per cent of the total number of residential flats in Group Housing colony for allotment to such eligible applicants as prescribed under the policy. The minimum size of EWS flat would be 200 sq. ft. and the maximum price for allotment of EWS flats in group housing colonies would be as fixed by the Government from time to time which presently is Rs.1,50,000/- per flat, i.e., @ Rs.750/- per sq. ft. It was submitted that in terms of DTCP policy, the Respondent duly advertised in regard to allotment of EWS flats in the leading newspaper namely 'DainikJagran', 'Dainik Bhaskar' and 'The Tribune' on 05.09.2011 wherein the obligatory information such as description of flats i.e., number and size of the flat under allotment, payment schedule and other essential requirements, terms and conditions for draw of lots of the EWS flats, were comprehensibly apprised. On account of publication of advertisement in accordance with guidelines, several applicants applied for allotment of EWS Unit. Therefore, the Complainant out of his own volition applied for allotment of EWS flat in the project Park Grandeura, Sector-82, Faridabad', and consistently on 13.10.2011 applicant submitted Application Form no. 3489 after duly affixing his signature, accompanied by booking amount of Rs. 15,000/- against which receipt dated 13.12.2011 was issued by the Company. It was submitted that in terms of Clause 2.5.2 of policy dated 17.05.2018, the Respondent conducted draw of lots, and accordingly the list of successful candidates for allotment along with waiting list of 25% of total number of flats was published in the daily newspaper. It was further submitted that name of the Complainant was pronounced as successful candidate in the draw of lots, accordingly the Respondent vide letter dated 15.09.2014 allotted Unit no. 303, EWS flats - Park Grandeura' tentatively admeasuring about 200 sq. ft. waspertinent to mention here that in case any successful candidate surrenders the EWS booking/allotment, candidates in the waiting list proceed ahead and accordingly becomes eligible for EWS allotment. It was pertinent to mention here that the Complainant has been allotted a EWS unitunder a compensatory policy and as per clauses of the policy under which allotment had been made it did not provide for any other compensation or relief measures with respect to any aspects to the allotment. It was stated that on numerous occasions, the OP tried to contact the Complainant with respect to refund of the deposited amount along with reasonable rate of interest but the Complainant on one pretext. In another declined the settlement terms while reiterating exorbitant considerations at the cost braced by the OP Le, expecting to receive extraneous monetary benefits from the OP in today's deprecating status of real estate industry. In case the Complainant was not ready to accept refund offer, the OP was ready and willing tohandover physical possession of the allotted unit at the earliest, as a matter of factcivil structure of the allotted unit stands completed, Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– BPTP with the prayer to:i. handover the possession of Unit No.303, having an area of 200 Sq. feet, in Sector-82, Faridabad at Park Grandeura, Faridabad to the complainant and get it registered with the registrar of assurances at an earliest. ii. pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and suffering caused to the complainant.iii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the respondent.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/a – affidavit of Kishan Chand, Ex.C-1 – application form, Ex.C-2 to 5 – receipts, Ex.C-6 – allotment letter, Ex.c-7 – legal notice, Ex.c-8 – postal receipt.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Jay Shankar, authorized Representative of the opposite party, Ex.r-1 – Resolution letter,, Ex. R/2 (colly) – letter dated 03rd Feb. 2010, Ex.R-3 – application form, Ex.R-4 – allotment letter.
6. During the course of arguments, Shri Jay Shankar, Authorized Representative of opposite party has made a statement that since 90% customer of this project has taken exist from this project. Resultantly no construction activity is going on in this project as well as the EWS Towers. Accordingly, company is ready to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 9% to the complainant.
7. On the basis of the statement of Shri Jay Shankar, AR on behalf of opposite party, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to the opposite party to refund the paid amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till its realization. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 11.01.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
