Haryana

StateCommission

CC/717/2017

KIRAN BALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TDI INFRACORP INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV SHARMA

10 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:10.11.2017

                Date of final hearing:10.04.2023

                                                 Date of pronouncement:28.04.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.717 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Kiran Bala wife of Shri Vishvinder Pal, resident of H.No.135, Type-4, Thermal Colony, Panipat, District Panipat.  

                                                                                      .….Complainant

Through counsel Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate

Versus

 

1.      M/s TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Panipat Ltd.), having its registered office at UG Floor, Vanadana Building, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2.      Managing Director M/s TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Panipat Ltd.), having its registered office at UG Floor, Vanadana Building, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.

….Opposite parties

 

Through Mr. A.P.S. Nain, proxy counsel for Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, Advocate.

 

CORAM:   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. A.P.S. Nain, proxy counsel for Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

Per Manjula, Member:

 

                    Brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that the opposite parties floated a scheme for allotment of residential plots in TDI City at Panipat. Initially, Shri Krishan Lal and Shri Jatinder Kapoor jointly purchased a Plot bearing No.F-87, Block F, measuring 250 Sq. Yds., situated at T.D.I. City Panipat, Haryana from Ops and paid advance payment of Rs.5,91,650/- on 09.04.2012. Plot Buyer Agreement between the parties executed on 05.09.2013. Thereafter, the aforesaid plot was re-allotted in the name of complainant and endorsement regarding transfer of name in Plot  Buyer Agreement was made by the opposite parties on 26.11.2013. The Ops agreed to sell the plot at a basic sale price of Rs.10000/- per square yard amounting to total basic sale consideration of Rs.29,58,250/-. The basic price as aforesaid was exclusive of the external development charges (EDC), or any other levies leviable by the State or any other competent authority but not limited to Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) which shall be payable by the purchaser to the seller in addition to the basic sale price of the said plot. The EDC was quantified at the rate of Rs.1257.62 approximately per square yard and the IDC was quantified at the rate of Rs.325.64 approximately per square yard. Thus, total sale consideration of the said plot comes to Rs.29,58,250/-. The complainant paid Rs.5,59,650/- i.e. 20% of the total sale consideration to the Ops as earnest money and opted Plan B. According to plan B, 90 per cent of total sale consideration of plot was to be paid within 14 months and only 10 per cent payment was to be made at the time of offer of possession. It is further submitted that the complainant had paid 90 per cent of the total basic sale consideration and 100 percent of EDC and IDC. The Ops have offered the possession of the plot and demanded Rs.4,96,637/- vide final statement dated 13.02.2014 on account of enhancement in external charges, Rs.10,000/- as miscellaneous expenses, Rs.20,000/- as interest free maintenance security, Rs.1,60,100/- as stamp duty, Rs.1,31,200/- was charged as PLC. It is also alleged that the Ops have made wrong enhancement in EDC and IDC etc. without any right and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against Ops. The opposite parties appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; regarding territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the plot in question from the previous allottees and endorsement in this regard was made in the agreement. It is also admitted that basic price of the plot was Rs.10,000/- per square yard exclusive of the external development charges and other charges levied or leviable by the State or any other competent authority but no limited to IDC. It is admitted that vide letter dated 13.02.2014, the Ops offered the possession of the plot to the complainant alongwith final statement of accounts giving details of the payments and dues towards the complainant. It is further submitted that the demanded amount of EDC does not include the amount of EDC enhanced by the state government vide notification dated 14.07.2011. It is also submitted that as per clause 2.2 of the agreement, the purchaser is liable to pay any variation in the total sale consideration due to changes in EDC & IDC, or any other charges so demanded by the State of Haryana/ statutory authorities. As per clause 2.4 of the agreement, the purchaser is liable to pay registration charges, stamp duty and other incidental charges as and when demanded by the seller to enable the seller to transfer the plot in favour of the complainant. It has been also pleaded that it is wrong that the demand as shown in details with the letter of offer of possession are wrong and denied.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainant, counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kiran Bala-complainant as Ex.CW1/A vide which she has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed the same.

4.                On the other hand, Shri Om Prakash Dhingra, authorized representative of the opposite parties has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant and by Mr. A.P.S. Nain, proxy counsel for Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, learned counsel for the opposite parties. With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

6.                It is undisputed that the Ops re-allotted the plot to the complainant and basic price of plot was Rs.10,000/- per square yard exclusive of EDC and other charges. It is also admitted that vide letter dated 13.02.2014, the Ops offered the possession of plot to the complainant alongwith final statement of accounts giving details of payments and dues toward the complainant. It is evident from Ex.C-3, that the complainant opted the schedule of payment plan B and as per plan B of payment plan, the complainant has paid 100% EDC and IDC charges. The said plan also reveals that entire payment of EDC was to be paid within 12 months from the date of booking. Meaning thereby, the complainant has already paid the entire amount of EDC to the opposite parties. In case even after when full EDC has been paid and the OP has paid any additional EDC to the Government, it was the duty of the opposite parties to place on record any document relating to the same so as to justify the genuineness thereof. In absence of any such evidence or any such document, the demand of EDC charges in the sum of Rs.1,50,691/- is not justified. The charges of CMC for Rs.5,000/-, interest free maintenance security Rs.1,60,100/-, miscellaneous expenses of Rs.10,000/- did not arise because the possession of the said plot has not been handed over to the complainant by the Ops. The Ops vide letter dated 13.02.2014 (Ex.C-4) offered the possession of the plot in question to the complainant subject to payment of Rs.4,96,637/- which also included EDC charges, CMC charges, interest free maintenance security charges and other misc. charges with a condition to clearance of possession dues. The demand of aforesaid charges escalated the issue and as a result thereof, the possession offered to the complainant did not materialized.

7.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, the complaint stands allowed with a direction to the Ops to withdraw the letter dated 13.02.2014 showing the final statement of account (Ex.C4) and to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot in favour of complainant with all the requisite amenities within the stipulated period of 45 days. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh only) as compensation for mental agony and harassment; to pay Rs.40,000 (Forty thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. In case of non-payment of compensation within the stipulated period of 45 days, the said amount shall carry interest @9% from the date of default till its actual payment.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P. Act would also be attracted. 

8.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

9.                Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

10.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on:28.04.2023                                    

 

 

 Manjula

(Member)                                                             

M.S.