Haryana

StateCommission

CC/705/2017

PURAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI CITY - Opp.Party(s)

VANSH MALHOTRA

27 Jul 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:08.11.2017

                Date of final hearing:27.07.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement:28.07.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.705 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Puran Singh S/o Bhim Singh, R/o House No.1904, Sector-12, Panipat.

                                                                                       .….Complainant.

Through counsel Mr. Vansh Malhotra, Advocate

Versus

 

1.    TDI City (Panipat) Ltd., Sector-39, Near Tau Devi Lal Park, Panipat through its Manager.

2.    TDI Infrastructure Ltd., UG Floor, Vandana Building, 11 Tolstoy Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001, through its General Manager.

….Opposite parties

Through counsel Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, Advocate

 

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Vansh Malhotra, counsel for the complainant.

Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, counsel for opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that opposite parties (“OPs”) in the year, 2011 floated a residential housing project under the name & style of “TDI City, Panipat” situated at Panipat (Haryana). Complainant was approached by the representatives of Ops and the complainant applied for purchase of a plot in said project. Builder Buyer’s Agreement dated 05.10.2011 was also executed between the complainant and OPs and on the same date OPs allotted a plot No.D-313 in Block-D, measuring 250 sq. yards, vide letter number AL-401. Basic sale price of the said plot was Rs.8000/- per sq. yard which comes to Rs.20,00,000/- for 250 sq. yard plus EDC charges @ Rs.1257.62 per sq. yards and IDC charges of Rs.325.64 per sq. yard, in total which comes to Rs.24,65,750/- for 250 sq. yards. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.22,58,750/- to the OPs on different dates as per their demands. It was alleged that on 13.02.2014, Ops issued letter of possession by increasing the amount as well as land area of 19.686 sq. yards without consent of complainant and further compelled the complainant to pay remaining amount of Rs.7,06,795/- till 15.03.2014. Thereafter, complainant asked the OPs for the reason for extending the amount and area of said plot, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. It was further alleged that the shape of increased plot was also altered and size of plot was also not square. Moreover the plot was having five corners which were against the norms of the colonizers and developers because as per the sale agreement the shape of plot cannot be altered. Further as per the complainant, location of project was not fully developed and basic amenities are still not there. Thus, there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant prayed that OPs be directed to refund deposited amount i.e. Rs.22,58,750/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposits till its realization or to allot a square size corner plot of the same size at the better location; to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.7,06,795/-, to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the Ops, upon which OPs appeared and filed their written statement, submitting therein that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants are not consumer but he is an investor who applied for purchase of plot in question for earning benefits and not for the residential purpose of his own. However, it was admitted that the complainant booked a plot measuring 250 sq. yards in their project and plot No. D-313 in Block-D, measuring 250 sq. yards, vide letter number AL-401 was allotted to the complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.24,65,750/-. Builder Buyer’s Agreement dated 05.10.2011 was also admitted. However, it was submitted that as per the terms and conditions of agreement, the OPs have every right to claim the amount for increased area and to effect the alteration in lay out plan of TDI City, Panipat, which also include the change in position, number, boundaries and dimensions or area of plot.  It was further submitted that as per clause 2.2 of the agreement, the purchaser agree, confirm and agree 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 and/or statutory authorities, agencies or any other department and the amount as apportioned by the seller shall be final and binding on the purchaser. So the OPs rightly demanded an amount of Rs.7,06,795/- in the final statement of account from the complainant. Other allegations made in the complaint were also denied. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, complainant-Puran Singh has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1 vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ankit Arora, authorized signatory of OPs as Ex.RA alongwith other documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Vansh Malhotra, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, learned counsel for Ops. With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint have been properly perused and examined.

6.                As per the basic averments raised in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he had already deposited, alongwith the interest or not? 

7.                While unfolding his arguments, it has been argued by Mr. Vansh Malhotra, learned counsel for the complainant that as far as the execution of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 05.10.2011 (Ex.C-1) is concerned, the same could not be disputed. It could also not be disputed that the complainant had paid Rs.22,58,750/- (Ex. C-4) to the Ops. It is also not controverted that the total sale consideration of the said flat was Rs.24,65,750/.  Complainant has already deposited Rs.22,58,750/- as per payment schedule and also received the possession letter dated 13.02.2014 (Ex.C-3) from the OPs, but the complainant was shocked to see the final statement that the OPs have increased the amount as well as land area of 19.686 sq. yards without any consent and intimation to the complainant. In these circumstances, the complainant had no other option, but, to seek the refund of the amount alongwith interest, which he had already paid, as they do not think that OPs will be able to put him into possession of the plot as he wish to get.

8.                On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, learned counsel for Ops has argued that complaint is not maintainable as the complainants are not consumer but he is an investor who applied for plot in question for earning benefits and not for the residential purpose of his own. He further argued that complainant booked a plot measuring 250 sq. yards in their project and plot No. D-313 in Block-D, measuring 250 sq. yards, vide letter No. AL-401 was allotted to the complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.24,65,750/-. Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 05.10.2011 was also executed. He further argued that as per the terms and conditions of agreement, the OPs have every right to claim the amount for increased area and to effect the alteration in lay out plan, which also include the change in position, number, boundaries and dimensions or area of plot. He further argued that as per clause 2.2 of the agreement, the purchaser agree, confirm and agree 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 and/or statutory authorities, agencies or any other department and the amount as apportioned by the seller shall be final and binding on the purchaser. He further argued that the OPs rightly demanded an amount of Rs.7,06,795/- in the final statement of account from the complainant. He further argued that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it stands proved that upon floating a project by the OPs-builders, a plot was purchased by the complainant for a total cost of Rs.24,65,750/- against which an amount of Rs.22,58,750/- has already been paid.  Plot Buyer’s Agreement which was executed on 05.10.2011 also stands proved. To the utter surprise of this Commission it is quite surprising as to how inspite of the fact that possession of the plot in question was offered to the complainant and thereafter, OPs increased the sale consideration of plot that too with the alteration in area, size and shape of plot also without any consent or intimation to the complainant. As such, there was a clear breach of terms and conditions of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement on behalf of the Ops. It is the normal trend of the developers that developer would collect their hard earned money from the individuals and would invest the funds in other projects and as a result thereof the project for which the investors have invested their hard earned money is not completed.  As such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in services of OPs and thus, the complainant is well within his legal rights to receive refund of the amount of Rs.22,58,750/-  (Rs. Twenty two lakhs fifty eight thousand seven hundred fifty only) which he had already deposited with the OPs. Even otherwise also, there is a strong element of physical and mental agony caused to the complainants for his having invested a huge amount and thereafter the sale consideration was increased by the OPs alongwith alteration in plot size that too without intimating or obtaining consent of complainant and under these constrained circumstances, he had to knock at the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount. In such like cases, the Commission had to deal with the developers with severe hands who are misusing the funds of the individuals. As such, the question is answered in the affirmative.

10.              As regards the rate of interest to be awarded, it may be relevant to keep the following factors into consideration. Keeping in view the recent periodic revision of repo rate by Monetary Policy Committee of Reserve Bank of India and consequent upward revision of Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) by the Nationalized Banks, there has been an increase in lending rate by the Nationalized banks. Accordingly it would, in considered view of this Commission, be just fair and reasonable to award 9% as rate of interest to the complainant.

11.              In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, the Ops are directed to refund the amount of Rs.22,58,750/-  (Rs. Twenty two lakhs fifty eight thousand seven hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum to the complainants from  the date of their respective deposits till realization.  In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainants would be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) on account of compensation for mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainants are also entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) as litigation charges. It is also made clear that in case of non-compliance of the aforesaid order by the OPs, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P. Act would also be attractable.

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

13.              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 perusal of the parties.

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

 

 

Pronounced on 28^th July, 2023

 

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III