Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

      Short question for adjudication in this complaint filed by Smt. Yogesh Kumari resident of Faridabad, Haryana, for short complainant, against the BPTP Limited, and anr. (Business Park Maintenance Services Pvt. Ltd.) hereinafter referred to as OPs, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Act, is whether the demand of Rs. 4,36,192/- towards EEDC, Rs. 2,83,715/- towards electrification and STP charges and of Rs. 1,90,700/- towards maintenance and other miscellaneous heads, as raised by the OPs from the complainant and non-payment of their of amounted to depriving the complainant the physical possession of the plot bearing number W8-01, admeasuring 317 sq. yd allotted to the complainant in the year 2008, is legally valid and justified.

      Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.

      One Mr. Jagjot Singh had booked a plot of land bearing number W8-01, admeasuring 317 sq. yd. in the project of the OPs namely "Parklands" at Sector-76 Faridabad in the year 2008 but later the complainant stepped into the shoes of Mr. Jagjot Singh. In order to get the registration of the plot changed in her name from the original buyer Sh. Jagjot Singh paid a total sum of Rs. 35,73,872/- to OP no. 1 towards entire basic sales prices amounting to Rs. 28,53,000/- (BSP), conveyance deed charges amounting to Rs. 1,42,650, external development charges (IDC) amounting to Rs. 3,24,608/-, infrastructure development charges (IDC) amounting to Rs. 1,41,065/- and utility connection charges (UCC) amounting to Rs. 15,000/- with a further amount of Rs. 1,75,678/- to Business Park Maintenance Services Pvt. Ltd. (O.P. No. 2). This was on the assurance that the possession of the plot would be handed over expeditiously. But the OPs failed to hand over the possession. On the contrary the OPs pressed for further payment under various heads like enhanced External Development charges, Electrification and STP Charges, Stamp Duty which were otherwise not part of the agreement. Possession was offered in September 2008 and alongwith the offer the complainant was asked to make some payment but that did not include any payment under the Head EDP, STP and EC charges which means these demands so made are afterthought to which the complainant vehemently sought the withdrawal of these said notice for payment under these heads. The complainant has further alleged that these demands of the OP were illegal and unenforceable in law as the demand of EEDC  having been stayed by virtue of the order dated 19.03.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 5835 of 2013 titled "Balwan Singh versus State of Haryana". But despite that the OPs continued to precipitate their demand under those heads. Secondly, the demand of OP-1 for an amount of Rs. 2,83,715/- in the name of Electrification and STP charges is also illegal and not maintainable under the in law as Chief Administrator, HUDA and other concerned authorities have already clarified that such facilities of Electrification Charges/Setting up of grids and STP are to be created and taken care of by the HUDA and payment of the same stood paid and recovered from them by the OP-1 under the Head EDC. Besides the OP-1 has neither created any STP facility nor any electrification/gird station etc. which means the demands of OP-1 under the heads/in the name of such STP/Grid station are even otherwise patently illegal. Further the claim under the maintenance charges when possession has not been handed over is contrary to the verdict of the Hon'ble NCDRC. The requisite amount having already been received by the OPs, having been deposited by the original buyer, the complainant sought for the refund of the amount which amount not having been refunded, this complaint has been filed for the redressal of the grievances praying for the relief as under:-

Direct the OP-1 to withdraw its demands of Rs. 4,36,192/- towards EEDC, of Rs. 2,83,715/- towards Electrification and STP Charges, of Rs. 1,90,700/- towards Stamp duty, and its demands towards interest and maintenance charges.

Direct the OP-1 to immediately handover possession of plot/unit W8-01, Parklands, Faridabad to the complainant.

Direct the OP-1 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 24,12,363/- as interest computed @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 01.07.2011 on the sum of Rs. 35,73,872/- deposited by her with the OP-1 in the month of June 2011 or in alternative.  

      The OP No. 1 demanded Rs.2,83,715/-from the Complainant and the demand of said charges are illegal and not maintainable in law. The demand of Rs. 2,83,715/- raised by the OP is unjustified as it has already been clarified that all such facilities of Electrification Charges/ Setting up of grids and STP are to be created and taken care off by HUDA. It is further submitted that OP No.1 has wrongly demanded said charges as no STP facility or any electrification or grid facility has been provided by the OP No.1. It is further submitted that here is no justification and legality in demands of OP No. 1 towards electrification and STP charges as OP No.1 was providing electricity to different owners/allottees in the project through gensets and it has not created or put in place any facility of grid station or 220KVGIS sub-station or any other infrastructure. The OP No. 1 has also not put on record, any proof of creation of sub-station or any other infrastructure for which it could have made any demand. In these circumstances amount to this effect is liable to be refunded. It is accordingly ordered. The amount be refunded with 6% interest from the date of receipt of the amount till the date of realisation.