Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The complainant further contended that the external development charges Rs. 18,747 @ Rs. 55 per sq. ft. are included in the lump sum consideration of Rs. 8,85,000. Similarly, he has deposited the electric connection charges to the tune of Rs. 4,200, miscellaneous charges to the tune of Rs. 2,500 and interest on delayed payment to the tune of Rs. 7358. The builder charged stamp duty and registration charges to the tune of Rs. 1,63,438 though the builder is not able to obtain the completion certificate from the Competent Authority, he has also been asked to deposit an interest free security deposit of Rs. 30,000 which is exhorbitant. He also contended that he is not liable to pay any maintenance charges amounting to Rs. 14,651 until the possession of the flat is delivered to him. Another important contention raised in the appeal is that the agreement executed between him and the builder is unequal and legally flawed.

14. In this connection, it would be useful to look into the relevant part of the order of the State Commission on this issue:

To support its contention the opposite party applied for appointment of a Local Commissioner to take measurements. It was opposed by the complainant. The relevant part of order dated 2.7.1996 reads as follows:

'At this stage we do not think that it is necessary to appoint any Local Commissioner as in the rejoinder the complaint does not specifically dispute the measurement given by the O.P., Mr. Jaggi (i.e. complainant) is willing to assume the said measurement to be correct...' Hence, if there is increase in the super area, the complainant is bound to pay the proportionate cost of the increased super area as well as the extra External Development charge at the original rates which is not difficult to calculate.

Since the possession has been offered within two years of allotment and demands being as per terms of brochure, we see no merit in the prayers made.

This revision petition lacks merit, hence dismissed. No order as to costs.

19. Hence it is clear that Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate on this issue.

(c) External Development Charges:

20. Unitech Ltd. (Builder) had collected Rs. 1,10,143 as external development charges from the purchaser of the flat and as there was an increase in the super area they gave a statement of accounts on 28.2.1995-asking the complainant to pay Rs. 18,747. As this issue relates to increase in the super area, v/p hold that it is the consequential payment which automatically follows with the increase in the area, hence, the complainant/appellant is liable to pay the same to the builder.

Contingency advance at the rate of Rs. 2 per sq. ft. amounting to Rs. 4,687 has also been demanded. It is not clear why this advance has been asked for but it is a petty amount and does not require interference by us. The parties can settle it after negotiations.

26. As this was not settled by negotiations the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that:

The appellant herein is responsible for any additional external development charges that may be levied by Haryana Government in future as per Clause 3 of the agreement. The demand for contingency advance is meant to cover any possible increase in External Development charges in future. The learned State Commission has failed to appreciate that the respondents herein have no right to count upon a mere contingency into a certainty. The contention that the so called contingency advance shall be refunded if there is no further levy is besides the point. The appellant herein understands that he is responsible for additional levy, if any,. and has undertaken to discharge his responsibility, if and when necessary.