State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajender Kumar vs Prabhu Shanti Real Estate Pvt.Ltd. on 20 October, 2023
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA PANCHKULA Date of Institution:18.11.2017 Date of final hearing:20.10.2023 Date of pronouncement: 31.10.2023 First Appeal No.62 of 2017 IN THE MATTER OF Rajender Kumar S/o Sh. Mehar Chand R/o H. No. 137, Sector-2 (HUDA), Rohtak. .....Appellant. Through Counsel Shri N.K. Malhotra, Advocate Versus 1. M/s Prabhu Shanti Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Administrative Office: 1214, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh-124507 (Jhajjar) Through its Director. 2. M/s Prabhu Shanti Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office D-5/2, Sector-15, Near Manav Chowk, Rohini, Delhi-11089. ....Respondents. Through counsel Shri Ramesh Malik, Advocate CORAM: S.C. Kaushik, Member. Present:- Shri N.K. Malhotra, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents. O R D E R
S. C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:
Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 14.12.2016 in Consumer Complaint No.45 of 2016, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (now 'learned District Commission'), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was disposed off and directions were issued as under:-
"Therefore, we have observed that the complainant is liable to pay the outstanding dues to the respondent. We are further of the considered view that without depositing the outstanding dues, the complainant cannot expect from the respondent to provide the relief as sought in the complaint. However, we find no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in any manner but we direct the respondent to accept the outstanding amount/dues as on 1.2.2016 i.e. Rs. 16,30,586/- from the complainant as per contents of letter Ex. R-27 without any penalty or interest if deposited by complainant within a period of one month from the date of this order. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly."
2. Brief facts of the complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the complainant has been allotted a residential flat No.T6-B3 in the PDM Hi-Tech Homes at Sector-3A, Sarai Aurangabad at Bahadurgarh vide allotment letter dated 22.1.2014 . It was alleged that as per application form, the company cannot charge beyond the contract. It was further alleged that the complainant has deposited all the applicable installments and in total he deposited more than Rs. 22,00,000/-, but was charged extra and pre-mature payments from the complainant i.e. demand for car parking, club cost, EDC/IDC, Gas supply pipe line security interest etc. and it has also not told the super area calculation. It was further alleged that the complainant several times visited the opposite parties ("OPs") and requested to do the needful, but of no use. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for issuance of directions to the OPs to make a fresh demand of correct EDC as per government rates, charge remaining installments as per construction plan and to pay compensation and the litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared before learned District Commission and filed their written version by submitting therein that the complainant has made a payment of approximately Rs.22.75 lacs towards the part payment of flat but, he did not deposit all the installments and dues well within the time. It was submitted that the complainant was to make total payment of Rs. 39,09,372/-upto 20.1.2016, whereas the complainant had paid only Rs. 22, 78,786/- and thus, the complainant was in default of Rs. 16,30,586/- and he has failed to deposit the said amount despite repeated requests and reminder of OPs. It was further submitted that the construction of the tower is at full swing and the casting of fourth floor has already been completed. It was further submitted that the OPs had demanded the payment in accordance with the agreement payment plan. It was further submitted that the OPs were charging the EDC as per rules and no demand made by the OPs was illegal. Finally, it was submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission issued directions as mentioned above in 1st para supra.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, complainant-appellant has preferred present appeal for setting aside the impugned order by accepting the present appeal.
6. The arguments have been advanced by Mr. N.K. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant. However, none has appeared on behalf of respondents. Record reveals that Mr. Ramesh Malik, Advocate had appeared on behalf of respondents on 7th November, 2022, thereafter nobody has turned up on behalf of respondents. Since, the matter is pertaining to the year, 2017, this Commission constrained to dispose of this appeal after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for appellant. With his kind assistance, contents of the appeal have also been properly perused and examined.
7. As per the learned counsel for appellant, the appellant-complainant has been allotted a residential flat No. T6 -B3 in the PDM Hi-Tech Homes at Sector-3A, Sarai Aurangabad at Bahadurgarh vide allotment letter dated 22.1.2014 and he had deposited all the applicable installments and dues as and when required and in total he had deposited more than Rs. 22,00,000/-, but the respondents-OPs was not following the rules of constructions & development and is charging extra and pre-mature payments from the appellant-complainant i.e. demand for car parking, club cost, EDC/IDC, Gas supply pipe line security interest etc. and also not told the super area calculation.
8. From the perusal of record, it reveals that before learned District Commission it was admitted by respondents that an amount of Rs. 22.75 lacs was received from present appellant towards the cost of flat as part payment, but he had not deposited all the installments and dues well within the time as the total cost of flat was Rs. 39,09,372/-, which was to be deposited upto 20.1.2016, whereas the complainant has made payment of Rs. 22,78,786/- only and thus, an amount of Rs. 16,30,586/- is due against the complainant-appellant, which was to be paid by 20.01.2016. It also stands proved that the present appellant-complainant-appellant failed to deposit the said amount despite repeated requests and reminder of respondents.
9. In view of the above submissions and after careful perusal of the entire record as well as in considered view of this Commission, learned District Commission rightly observed that the present appellant-complainant is liable to pay the outstanding dues to the respondents and without depositing the outstanding dues, the appellant-complainant cannot expect from the respondents to provide the relief as sought in the complaint. Further, the learned District Commission rightly directed the respondents to accept the outstanding amount/dues i.e. Rs. 16,30,586/- from the complainant without any penalty or interest if deposited by present appellant-complainant. The impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law. There is no need to interfere with it. In view of this, present appeal stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. The parties shall bear their own costs.
10. 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.
11. Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.
12. File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.
Pronounced on 31st October, 2023 S.C. Kaushik Member Addl. Bench