State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raghbir Singh Gill vs M/S Taneja Developers And ... on 12 March, 2018
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.357 of 2017
Date of Institution : 15.05.2017
Order reserved on: 08.03.2018
Date of decision : 12.03.2018
1. Sh. Raghbir Singh Gill
2. Smt. Rajender Kaur Gill.
Both resident of H. No.1027, Sector 110, TDI City-2, Mohali -
140307.
............Complainants
Versus
M/s TDI Infratech Limited, SCO 51-52, Sector 118, TDI City -
Mohali.
.......... Opposite party.
Complaint under Section17 (1) (a)
(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the complainants : Sh. Raghbir Singh Gill, in person For the OP : Sh. Abhinav Kalia, Advocate ............................................
SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER:-
This complaint has been filed by the complainants on the averments that they purchased plot No.1027 from original allottee Sh. Sudhir Yogi s/o Sh. R.L. Sharma and the same was transferred in their name after paying the initial payments. Buyer's agreement was executed between the parties on 17.03.2011. As per clause No.1 of the agreement, in addition to basic sale price, complainants have to pay Rs.8,25,000/- to OP at quantified rate of Rs.1650/- per sq. yards, as External Development Charges, which were payable to C.C. No.357 of 2017 2 GMADA. Further, under Clause No.3 of buyer's agreement, in case of variation between the quantified and actual EDC rates fixed by GMADA, plot buyer (complainants) shall pay the amount of difference, in case the recovered amount exceeds the GMADA levied EDC charges. The complainants cleared all the payments, as per statement of account dated 04.11.2011 issued by OP and possession of the plot was handed over to complainants, vide letter No.MP2-10562-HP-MP-19 dated 29.11.2011. However, complainants made a request to OP regarding the settlement of EDC charges. Number of times, they requested for the same, but all in vain. After that they filed an application before RTI and received the information that block of seven plots from 1022 to 1028, which include the complainants' plot were imposed EDC of Rs.33,00,000/- per acre. The EDC rates included the area covered under roads and open spaces and the area under the same was worked out to 36.6% as per layout plan dated 04.06.2009. RTI information has revealed that the OP was aware of the actual EDC rates levied by GAMADA early on 30.06.2009, but the same were concealed from complainants at the time of execution of buyer's agreement on 17.03.2011 by OP. Complainants are only liable to pay EDC amount, as per levied rates of GMADA and no other charges such as licence fee interest accrued on EDC etc. They made a request to OP to refund the excess amount of Rs.2,91,000/- recovered from them under the pretext of EDC charges, but all in vain. Hence, they filed the complaint before this Commission seeking following directions against OPs:-C.C. No.357 of 2017 3
i. to pay Rs.2,91,500/- as excess amount charged under the head of EDC along with interest from 17.03.2011:
ii. to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OP filed written reply by raising the preliminary objections that complainants filed the false complaint on wrong facts, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. OP set up mega housing project in Village Bhagomajra and Village Behrampur (Mohali) and submitted its proposal to Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Punjab to develop Mega Housing Project within an investment of over Rs.310.57 crore. The said project was accepted by the Government and letter of intent was issued in favour of OP on 31.8.2006, under the provisions of Article 298/299 of Constitution of India. The project of OP was exempted from provisions of PAPRA Act. It further pleaded that vide different demand notices, competent authority raised the total demand of Rs.5035.13 lacs, as external development charges for residential plot areas along with reserved area for public utility under its Mega Housing Project at Landra-
Banur Road falling in Sector 110 and 111 SAS Nagar Mohali and each allottee has to pay Rs.1654/- per sq. yd as EDC charges. However, OP has raised only a demand of Rs.1650/- per sq. yd. from complainants as EDC charges. Since the demand of above mentioned EDC charges are made from the OP by the competent authority in installments and accordingly the same is remitted to competent authority. Further, imposed interest on the said amount also formed part of external development charges payable by the C.C. No.357 of 2017 4 complainant. It further pleaded that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the dispute is regarding the quantum of external development charges deposited by the OP with the concerned development authority i.e. GMADA, therefore, GMADA is one of the necessary parties in this case, which was not impleaded as a party by the complainants. The complaint is barred by limitation as the statutory period of two years had already expired on 10.06.2016. On merits, it pleaded that the EDC amount was taken from all the allottees, as per demand raised by Government Authorities. No excess amount has been charged from complainants. Vide Notification dated 06.05.2013, the rates of EDC had been increased from Rs.33 lac per acre to Rs.36 lac, therefore, complainants are liable to pay the said difference of enhanced amount of EDC. As per terms of agreement, they are liable to pay the EDC charges on actual basis. All other averments made in the complaint were denied and OP prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C- A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Jatin Jain, aged about 40 years, s/o Sh. Anil Jain DGM Marketing of OP No.1 along with documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant Raghbir Singh Gill in person and learned counsel for OP and perused the record of the case. It is specific plea of the complainants that OP charged excess EDC charges from them. They are not liable to pay any of charges C.C. No.357 of 2017 5 such as EDC on commercial, public facility plots, social infrastructure fund, urban development, fund, interest under Deferred Payment Plan or additional interest on defaulted installments etc. Complainants had taken the information from GMADA Ex.C-8 to the effect that OP had paid EDC charges to GMADA @ Rs.33 lac per acre on block of plots from 1022 to 1028 and this includes area covered under roads, parks and open spaces, which are calculated to 36.06% as per approved lay out plan of OP. The grievance of complainant is that sum of Rs 33 lakh per acre of 4840 sq yard was paid on the area of plots including the area under Roads and Open spaces i.e. 36.06 % per acre. Complainants are only liable to pay EDC charges on plotted area. After deduction of 36.06 per cent/1746 sq yard the residential area covers only 3094 Sq yard and EDC charges comes Rs.1066/- per sq yard from plot buyer. Whereas, OP had charged Rs.8,25,000/- at the rate of Rs 1650 per sq yard. Complainants are only liable to pay Rs.5,33,000/- as the rate of Rs.1066 Per sq yard and difference comes Rs.2,92,000/- against OP.
5. In normal circumstances, the external development work includes roads and road systems, water supply, sewerage and drainage systems, electricity supply or any other work which may have to be executed in the periphery of, or outside, a colony. Further, internal development work means road, foot-paths, sewer, drains, tree planting, street lighting, provision for community buildings and for treatment and disposal of sewage of sullage water, or any other work in a colony, therefore, OP was required to lay the C.C. No.357 of 2017 6 road system, water supply sewerage and drainage system, electricity supply including street light, treatment plant for disposal of sewerage and sullage water for development of the project. All the amenities are for the use of plot buyers and for the same they have to pay the charges. Complainants have failed to lead any evidence on the record to prove that these amenities were not provided to them in the said complex by OP. clause No.3 of buyer's agreement is reproduced as under:-
"That, the purchaser(s) doth hereby agree, confirm and undertake to pay any variation in the TSC, due to change in EDC or any other charges so demanded by the State of Punjab or the Central Government their ministries, departments, authorities or agencies, with regard to the sale of the said plot. The amount as apportioned by the seller shall be final and binding on the purchaser(s). In case of any delayed payment, a simple interest @ 21% p.a. shall be payable by the purchaser(s). It is agreed between the parties that the seller shall adjust the installment amount received form the purchaser(s) first towards the interest and other sums, if any due from the purchaser(2) under the agreement and the balance, if any, towards the TSC as per the payment plan."
A perusal of this clause reveals that complainants are bound to pay the EDC charges which are levied by competent authority. State Government charge different kind development charges from builders like, scrutiny fees, institution of land use, change of land use, license & permission fees and infrastructure charges. EDC and IDC charges are collected by the state/competent authorities and are used for the development of infrastructure in local areas and C.C. No.357 of 2017 7 across sate. Vide different demand notices Ex.OP-1 to ExOP-4 GMADA demanded EDC charges as under:
Vide demand notice No.1137 dated 21.07.2010, Ex.OP-1 Purpose/use Area in acres Rate per Amount lac/ per acre Residential 70.86 33.00 2107.38 Vide demand notice No.1220 dated 28.07.2010, Ex.OP-2 Purpose/use Area in acres Rate per Amount lac/ per acre Residential 43.20 25.56 843.48 Vide demand notice No.1420 dated 07.10.2011, Ex.OP-3 Purpose/use Area in acres Rate per Amount lac/ per acre Residential 33.00 600.60 Vide demand notice No.1436 dated 16.05.2014, Ex.OP-4 Purpose/use Area in acres Rate per Amount lac/ per acre Residential 148.833 36.00 1483.67 OP placed on record Ex.OP/5 where it is clearly set out that total area under residential plot, as per lay out plan approved on
06.01.2014 is 304380.61 sq. yds. and as per that EDC per sq. yards comes out Rs.1654.22/-, whereas, OP charged Rs.1650/- per sq. yard from complainants only. The OP have neither indulged in unfair trade practice not committed any deficiency in service by charging any excess amount from the complainants. The complainants are not entitled to seek refund of the amount, as EDC C.C. No.357 of 2017 8 charges paid by the complainants are according to legal parameters only.
6. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP in collecting excess amount of EDC from the complainants. Hence, the complaint of the complainants is dismissed being without any merits.
7. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 27.02.2018 and the order was reserved. The certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties, as per rules.
8. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J.S. KLAR)
PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
March 12, 2018 (Surinder Pal Kaur)
DB MEMBER