OMAXE LIMITED Vs. ANAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/S. Omaxe Ltd. through its Managing Director and through its Authorised Representative have jointly filed the present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the Impugned Order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal No. FA/988/2014, whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by Omaxe Limited (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party) against the Order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as 'District Forum').By the said Order, the District Forum while allowing the Complaint filed by Dr. Anand Jain (hereafter referred to as the Complainant), had directed the Opposite Party to execute Buyer's Agreement with the Complainant, if not executed yet, and to hand over physical possession of Plot No. 1839-C.The Opposite Parties were also directed to accept the remaining amount from the Complainant without any extra charges and to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited with them, for delay from 1st January 2007, till delivery of actual possession.The Opposite Party was also directed to pay Rs.25,000 towards compensation.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint, are that the Dr. Anand Jain, the Complainant, had booked a plot having an area of 300 sq yards in Omaxe City Project, G.T. Road, Sonepat, launched by Opposite Party and paid a sum Rs.11,11,500/-, i.e., 95% of the total consideration on 16.12.2005 for which a receipt No.39222 dated 10.01.2006 was issued.On demand of the Opposite Party, the Complainant further deposited a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- towards External Development Charge (hereinafter referred to as 'EDC')/Internal Development Charges (hereinafter referred to as 'IDC') vide Receipt No. 184625 dated 03.04.2007.Accordingly, the Complainant was allotted Plot No. 1839-C vide letter dated 26.9.2006. The Complainant was surprised to receive a letter dated 15.07.2010 from Opposite Party informing him that his earlier allotted Plot No. 1839 C of 300 sq. yard had been replaced with Plot No.1782 B of 299 sq. yd.Subsequently, vide letter dated 02.09.2011 the Opposite Party demanded Rs.1,11,805/- towards EDC/IDC charges, whereas Complainant had already paid 100% EDC/IDC vide receipt No. 184625 dated 3.4.2007. Despite several requests, Opposite Party did not deliver the possession of the Plot.As per the Rules of Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, the possession of the vacant plot was to be given to the Complainant in two years from the date of allotment, i.e. 26.09.2006. Since all the persuasive efforts to get possession went fruitless, alleging deficiency in Service on part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking following directions to the Opposite Party to:-

(3.) Upon notice the Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party.The Opposite Party pleaded that the earlier allotted Plot No. 1839-C was replaced with Plot No. 1782-B in Block-D as per agreed terms by which Opposite Party was entitled to change the Plot. Vide letter dated 02.09.2011, a sum of Rs.1,11,805/- was demanded towards EDC as the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Chandigarh demanded for additional EDC, which the Complainant did not deposit despite repeated reminders. The Complainant was not entitled to get the possession of the Plot as he did not pay due amount of Rs.5,06,173/- and possession could only be given after payment of all the dues.Since the Complainant failed to deposit the due amount despite repeated reminders, the allotment of the Plot was cancelled. The Opposite Party denied any kind of deficiency in Service or Unfair Trade Practices on its part and prayed for dismissal of Complaint with heavy cost.