State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurbax Singh Bains vs Pearls Infrastructure Projects ... on 8 November, 2013
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2013
Date of institution : 30.10.2013
Date of decision : 08.11.2013
Gurbax Singh Bains aged 64 years son of Shiv Singh, resident of
H.No.206, Phase 6, Mohali.
.......Complainant
Versus
i) Pearls Infrastructure Projects Limited, SCO 6, Sector 69,
Mohali through its Managing Director.
ii) Government of Punjab through Chief Administrator, Punjab
Urban Development Authority (PUDA), PUDA Bhawan, Phase
9, Mohali.
.........Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the complainant : Shri G.S. Bains, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The facts, as pleaded in the complaint, are that the complainant submitted an application to opposite party No.1 through an agent for allotment of Plot No.1025, Pearls City, Sector 104, Mohali, measuring 320 square yards at the rate of Rs.14,500/- per square yard and paid a sum of Rs.6,96,000/-; being 15% of the earnest money. At the time of booking of the plot, it was presented to him that opposite party No.1 had already obtained the requisite Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2013. 2 licences/approvals/exemptions from opposite party No.2 and the project management agreement had already been executed with one PACL India Limited on 11.7.2006 for the development and construction of the Township and that the possession of the plot shall be delivered from the date of commencement of the development and the construction on the said township. The development work had been going on since July 2006. As per the terms and conditions specified in the application, it was stipulated that no interest free maintenance security would be payable and that the price of the plot included external development charges and he was liable to pay only the stamp duty and the registration charges, in addition to the settled price, which was payable in instalments, which were to be completed within a period of 24 months. It was also stipulated that he would be required to sign buyer's agreement after the acceptance of the application within 30 days. He paid Rs.4,64,000/- on 7.6.2010 being 10% of the cost of the plot. It was after repeated reminders sent by him that the provisional allotment letter of the plot was issued on 27.7.2010 and the buyer's agreement signed by opposite party No.1 was received on 19.12.2010. After he paid 95% of the total sale price to the tune of Rs.44,47,326/-, the opposite party invented a new scheme in order to exploit him economically. He was directed to take possession of the plot after making 5% payment within 30 days failing which he was asked to pay the holding charges at the rate of Rs.50/- per square yard per month till the taking of the possession. The external development charges, other charges to be levied by GMADA and the Town and Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2013. 3 Country Planning Department were also included in the basic price. The water and electricity connections were not obtained and opposite party No.1 agreed to supply the same from its own source for which he was asked to pay the charges on actual basis. Rs.1,07,865/- was demanded as electrification charges without disclosing the manner in which those exorbitant charges were demanded. The administrative charges of Rs.16,854/-, replacement/sinking fund of Rs.1,13,258/-, interest free maintenance security of Rs.32,000/- and club membership of Rs.39,326/- were demanded unreasonably and unfairly over and above the settled price. The failure of opposite party No.1 to hand over the possession of the plot after receiving more than 95% of the price and the consequent delay would result in cost escalations in the construction of the house by him. All these acts of opposite party No.1 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. It was asked to hand over the possession without claiming any such charges from him as the same were not covered by the conditions of allotment but it insisted to recover the same before handing over the possession of the plot. On the basis of all these facts, he prayed for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-
"i) Not to charge interest of Rs.9,11,000/-;
ii) to complete the incomplete development of the allotted
plot immediately and to hand over the possession;
iii) to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount received in advance;Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2013. 4
iv) to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him;
v) to pay Rs.51,000/- as litigation expenses;
vi) to pay Rs.2,25,000/- on account of cost of escalation for delay in the construction."
2. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the averments as made in the complaint are supported by the documents annexed herewith and from those averments, it is very much apparent that opposite party No.1 was deficient in service in not giving the possession of the plot after having received 95% of the settled price and is guilty of unfair trade practice by making demand of the other charges, which were never stipulated between them. He also contended that the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment are to be read along with the terms of the buyer's agreement and in view of those terms and conditions the said opposite party was not entitled to any such amount as mentioned in the statement of account over and above the basic sale price.
3. It is very much clear from the letter dated 18.7.2012 Annexure-H that the possession of the plot was offered to the complainant and detailed statement of the amounts due and payable by him was sent along with that letter and he was asked to take the possession within 30 days of the receipt of the letter after the payment of the amounts mentioned in the statement of account. Before permission can be granted to the complainant to proceed with the complaint, it is to be seen whether he has been able to show apparently that he was not liable to pay any amount over and above Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2013. 5 the basic sale price and was entitled to the possession of the plot without the payment of those amounts as opposite party No.1 can be said to be deficient in service only in case that question is answered in his favour. The unfair trade practice can be established only if the complainant ables to show prima facie that opposite party No.1 was not entitled to any such amount over and above the basic sale price of the plot and he was entitled to the possession after he made payment of 95% of that basic sale price.
4. From the contents of the documents annexed with the complaint, these questions are to be answered against the complainant. It cannot be said that the terms and conditions contained in the application for allotment Annexure-B were to override the Plot Buyers Agreement Annexure-C, which was executed between the parties after that application was submitted by the complainant. Moreover, there is no such term or condition in that allotment letter that the applicant was not to pay anything over and above the basic sale price before the delivery of the possession of the plot to him. As per the terms and conditions for allotment, the applicant had agreed to pay 15% of the cost of the plot on the allotment thereof and the balance amount was to be paid in accordance with the usual instalment plan. The Buyers Agreement was to be executed within 30 days of the date of the allotment of the plot. The complainant has also agreed to reimburse opposite party No.1 and to pay on demand all taxes, levies or assessment or other outgoings of any nature whether levied now or leviable in future on the land or on the building as the case may be from the date of Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2013. 6 allotment. There is no such term and condition on the basis of which it may be concluded that he was not liable to pay any amount over and above the basic sale price of Rs.46,40,000/-. The following terms of the agreement are very important for determining the above said questions:-
"1(c) The cost of Electricity Connection which inter-alia, includes electric wiring, installation of electric sub-station, laying of transmission lines, expenses incurred on other allied works etc., is not included in the aforesaid Basic Sale Price and shall be payable by the Allottee in addition to price of the said Plot. If the Promoter gets permission to receive and distribute bulk supply of electricity in the said Township from the concerned authority, the Allottee herein agrees to abide by all the terms and conditions thereof and to pay on demand by the Promoter or its nominated agency, proportionate share of all deposits or charges paid or payable by the Promoter to concerned authority to whom permission to receive bulk supply and distribute the same is granted. The Allottee shall also pay to the Promoter an amount as may be determined by the Promoter at the time of providing necessary connection to make arrangements for providing sewer and water connection from the mains laid along the road serving the said Plot.
(d) It shall entirely be the responsibility of the Allottee to strictly adhere the payment schedule as mentioned in the Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2013. 7 Schedule of Payments annexed herewith as Annexure "A". Though further intimation/call notices regarding payments of instalments & other dues shall be sent by the Promoter but non-receipt thereof by the Allottee shall not absolve him from his obligations to make timely payment as timely payment of instalments & other dues is the essence of this agreement. The payment is to be made in instalments as prescribed in the Schedule of Payments annexed to this agreement. The applicable schedule shall form and be read as part of this agreement.
2. Apart from the above internal services if any outside (External and/or peripheral) services is provided by any Government or local authority for any bigger zone and any charge is levied thereof and/or any other charges levied in any respect, the same shall also be payable in addition to the aforesaid Basic Sale Price & charges for the said Plot and be paid pro-rata by the Allottee.
* The prorata share of External Development Charges (EDC), Infrastructure Development Charges (I.D.C.) or other charges levied by the Office of PUDA/Town and Country Planning Department, Punjab, as on date, is included in the Basic Sale Price of the said Plot. In case of any increase in the amount of external development charges the same shall be to the account of the Allottee and the provision to this effect shall be Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2013. 8 incorporated in the sale/conveyance deed to be executed by the Promoter in favour of the Allottee and shall be binding upon the Allottee. Such increased sum shall be paid by the Allottee to the Promoter on demand.
11. The Allottee shall be required to take over possession of the said Plot within 30 days from the date of intimation by the Promoter to that effect in writing, failing which the same shall lie at his own risk & cost. Further the Allottee may be liable to pay holding charges at such rate as may be determined by the Promoter."
5. The letter received by the complainant from the side of opposite party No.1, vide which the offer of possession, was made to him is Annexure-H. That letter is dated 18th July, 2012. Then there is letter dated 9.9.2013 Annexure-I, which was the third reminder sent to him for taking the possession on the payment of the outstanding amount. That outstanding amount is mentioned in the statement of account, which is a part of that letter itself. Vide that statement of account, the amounts, as mentioned in the complaint, were charged and the complainant was asked to deposit the same before taking delivery of compensation. The perusal of the above said reproduced terms of the Agreement makes it very much clear that he was liable to pay those charges. He was entitled to the possession of the plot only after the payment of those charges and he failed to pay the same. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that opposite party No.1 was deficient in service in not giving the possession of the plot to the complainant or that it indulged in unfair Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2013. 9 trade practice by making demand of the above said charges, which were in terms of the Agreement so executed between the parties.
6. In view of the above discussion, the complainant cannot be permitted to proceed with this complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) November 08, 2013 MEMBER Bansal