Delhi

StateCommission

CC/35/2014

DR. (MRS.) ANOOP DABAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S EXPRESS PROJECTS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

 IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 15.09.2017

Date of Decision :     22.09.2017

Complaint No.35/2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Dr. (Mrs.) Anoop Dabas

W/o  Dr. M.S.Dahiya

R/o Shanti Mohan Hospital

Near Railway Crossing, Lampur Road

Narela,

Delhi-110040.                                                                                     ……Complainant                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Versus

 

M/s Express Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Office at: 810, Surya Kiran Building

19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

Through its Managing Director                                                      ….Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM

             

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                Yes/No

SHRI O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

         

                                                JUDGEMENT

            The case presented by complainant is that she booked residential plot on 02.09.11 in Express City, Sector-35, Sonepat, Haryana. Provisionally Plot No. 70 in Block A measuring 270 sq. yds. at a Basis Sale Rate of Rs. 15,520/- per sq. yd. amounting to Rs. 57,27,240/- including development charges and preferential location charges. She paid Rs.3,33,884.65 on 19.08.13 under protest vide Building Buyer Agreement dated  03.10.11.  At the time of booking she was informed that payment shown in plan B details at Item No. 5 to 10 of Schedule-1 were to be made after six months of booking. She was shocked to find demand letter dated 09.11.11 for payment of interest to the tune of Rs. 16,635/- and demand letter dated 14.11.11 for laying of storm water drain in front of the plot  allegedly laid by OP on 09.11.11, on  laying of sewer line by OP on 2.9.11 in front of plot. It is evident from the fact that sewer lines were not laid on  2.9.11 as the same was not  shown  in  demand letter dated 09.11.11.  OP laid sewer line in March, 2012 as evident from demand letter dated 15.03.12.  Complainant paid Rs. 57,27,240/- on 22.02.13 and rest Rs. 2,09,520/- were to be paid at the time of possession. OP charged interest of Rs. 1,33,205/- illegally and complainant had paid the same on 19.08.13 under protest.  OP illegally charged Rs. 55,604/- as outstanding dues, Rs. 11,000/- towards legal charges, Rs. 50,000/- towards club membership charges which is yet to be started. OP charged Rs. 21,303/- monthly maintenance charges w.e.f. 01.10.03 and charged Rs. 52,600/- towards interest free maintenance security which are illegal.

2.         Complainant booked plot measuring 270 sq. yds.  Vide letter dated 22.07.13 OP offered possession of plot measuring 263 sq. yds..  Thus OP charged Rs. 1,08,630/- for seven sq. yds which it is liable to refund.  Complainant received letter dated 22.07.13 demanding Rs. 2,01,168/- for Serial A to C and Rs. 1,32,716/-  from Serial D to F. OP is liable to refund Rs. 4,32,352/- charged illegally and paid under protest by the complainant on 19.08.13.  OP is also liable to pay interest @ 21% p.a. from 19.08.13 as it was charging said rate of interest from the complainant.  There is no mention of club membership charges in the buyer agreement .There is no occupancy of the plot and there is no question of club being operational.  Moreover complainant does not want to become member of the club and she cannot be compelled to make payment of club membership charges.  She sent notice dated 13.08.13 but no reply was received. Acts of OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for directing OP to refund Rs.4,32,352/- with interest and to hand over possession of the plot measuring 270 sq. yds. after completing all  formalities, directing OP to pay interest @ 21% p.a. on Rs. 57,27,240/- paid by her w.e.f. 12.02.13 as compensation for not handing over possession.

3.         OP filed WS raising preliminary objection that it raised various demands from time to time and complainant either did not pay the same or made payment late.

4.         On merits it admitted the booking.  It pleaded that it laid storm water drain in front of plot on 09.11.11 and water line on 14.04.11.  Complainant is responsible to pay maintenance and other charges as per clause 5.6 and 5.10 of the agreement.  Complainant agreed to clause 3 (b) of the agreement in which it is clearly mentioned that area of plot was tentative and might undergo  upward or downward revision at the sole discretion of the seller.  Refund for the same(decrease in the area) had also been adjusted in the account of the complainant.  Hence it prayed for dismissal ofthe complaint.

5.         Complainant filed rejoinder and her own affidavit by way of evidence. During the pendency of the case the complainant handed over the draft of Rs., 2,89,200/- towards stamp duty for execution of sale deed on1.10.15 in court.  The same was returned by OP on 04.12.15 as the same became stale.

6.         OP filed affidavit of its Director Shri Pankaj Goyal in evidence. Both the parties have filed written documents.

7.         We have gone through the material and heard the arguments.  Complainant booked corner plot adjoining 24 mt. wide road.  She paid 15% extra for preferential location charges and 12.5% extra for corner plot.  Complainant paid the booking amount on 02.09.11 and next instalment was paid in advance on 13.10.11.  Though the same was payable on 02.11.11. She paid interest to the tune of Rs. 16,635/- under protest.  This demand was enhanced to Rs. 19,046/- with additional charges.  As per agreement, development charges in Plan ‘B’ were to be called for payment only after 02.03.12.  Laying of sewer line on 02.09.11 is persee incorrect.  Same did not find place in agreement dated 03.10.11.  Agreement is subsequent in time to the laying down of alleged sewer line.

8.         Letter of offer of possession which is Annexure 5 and written arguments of complainant show demand of Rs. 55,604/- against serial No. A towards outstanding dues which is balance payable at the time of possession.  The possession has not been delivered till date.  Rs.1,33,205/- are shown as interest of delayed payment serial no. ‘B’. It does not show which payments were delayed.  How much was delay and how the interest was calculated? It demands Rs. 11,000/- against serial no. ‘C’  against legal charges, on account of what legal charges is not known.  It demands Rs. 50,000/- for club membership charges against serial no. ‘D’.  There is no mention of membership of club in the agreement. Letter assessed monthly maintenance charges @ 2.25 per sq. yds. w.e.f. 1.10.13 for 36 months against serial no. ‘E’.  Letter is dated 22.07.13, charges were to start from 1.10.13 /future date and are for future period of 36 months.  It is not understandable that such a demand can stand scrutiny.  It demanded Rs. 52,600/- towards interest free maintenance security charges @ 200/- per sq. yd. against serial no. ‘F’.  Payment under serial E and F can start after handing over possession but has been demanded in advance. Still the complainant paid the entire amount of Rs. 4,32,352/-. The OP is liable to refund price charged by it for 7 sq. yds. as area decreased from 270 sq. yds. to 263 sq. yds.

9.         The complainant submitted that plot offered to her is neither adjoining 24 mt. road nor is a corner plot and she has paid Rs. 11,52,360/- on that account.  OP replied road was to be constructed by Govt of Haryana and the width of the road was reduced as some one encroached part of the road.  For the same reason plot lost character of corner plot.  It was further submitted that litigation was going on between encroacher and the government.  Thus we suggested that complainant would be entitled to recover Rs. 11,52,360/- only if it is found that OP has allotted the alleged encroached land to the person in occupation thereof.  The OP agreed to the same.

9.         Plea of that area was tentative and could be increased or decreased.  That is true but if area decreases, OP has to reduce the amount proportionately. Similarly plea of adjustment of difference in price due to reduction in area, is vague.  It does not show when and how adjustment was done.         

10.       As a result of the above discussion we direct OP to hand over possession of the agreed plot measuring 263 sq. yds to the complainant, to refund Rs. 4,32,352/- received by it as demanded in letter dated 22.07.13 which is annexure 5 of the written arguments.  It is also directed to refund Rs.1,08,640/- towards decrease in the area from 270 sq yds. to 263 sq. yds.  OP will pay interest on above amount, directed to be refunded @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment till date of refund.

10.       OP is directed to comply with the order within 30 days failing which complainant would be entitled to invoke u/s 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                             (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER (JUDICIAL)