ASHWINDER BEHL Vs. MGF DEVELOPMENTS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate, for the complainants, Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Yudhishtir Singh, Advocate, for opposite party-1 and Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate, for opposite party-2.

(2.) Above complaint has been filed, for directing the opposite parties to (i) handover possession of Unit No.VP-E-402, in the project "The Vilas", complete in all respect, with all facilities and amenities as per agreement and execute conveyance deed in favour of the complainants, (ii) pay compensation, for delay in possession in the form of interest @24% per annum on the deposit of the complainants from due date of possession till the delivery of possession, (iii) pay Rs.5.00 lacs, as loss and damages suffered by the complainants, (iv) pay Rs.5.00 lacs, as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (v) pay Rs.2.00 lacs, as travelling expenses, (vi) take back demand of E.E.D.C. dtd. 12/10/2011, (vii) declare demand of I.D.C. as unlawful, (viii) pay Rs. one lac, as the costs of litigation; and (ix) any other relief which is deemed proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The complainants stated that M/s. MGF Developments Limited and M/s Columbia Holding Pvt. Ltd. (the opposite parties) were companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing projects and selling its units to the prospective buyers. The opposite parties launched a group housing project in the name of "The Vilas", at Sector-25, Gurgaon, Haryana, in the year 2005 and made wide publicity. M/s. Prem Nath Diesels Pvt. Ltd. (predecessor-in-interest of the complainants) booked a 4BR (Large) and deposited booking amount of Rs.15.00 lacs on 29/4/2005 and Rs.1755075.00 on 23/9/2005. Opposite party-1 issued Provisional Allotment Letter dtd. 29/10/2005, allotting Unit No. VP-E-402. The opposite parties executed The Vilas Flat Buyer's Agreement dtd. 24/5/2006 of Unit No. VP-E-402, approximate area 3825 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs.4150.00 per sq.ft. + EDC at the rate of Rs.105.00 per sq.ft., basic price Rs.16275375.00 + Rs.900000.00 for three car parking spaces in favour of M/s. Prem Nath Diesels Pvt. Ltd. Payment plan was "Construction Linked Payment Plan", under which total payment has to be made in 14 instalments within 36 months. Last instalment was payable at the time of offer of possession. As per demand, M/s. Prem Nath Diesels Pvt. Ltd. deposited Rs.1627538.00 on 4/11/2005, Rs.1220653.00 on 1/6/2006, Rs.1220653.00 on 25/4/2007, Rs.1670653.00 on 16/7/2007, Rs.1670653.00 on 31/10/2007, Rs.1220653.00 on 24/12/2007, Rs.1220653.00 on 7/3/2008, Rs.813769.00 on 30/4/2008 and Rs.813769.00 on 25/8/2008 (total Rs.14734069.00). Sri Rajinder Nath, Managing Director of M/s. Prem Nath Diesels Pvt. Ltd. wanted to change the name of allottee over the said Unit and get it allotted in the names of the complainants. On the instructions of the opposite parties, Sri Rajinder Nath applied for change of the name of the allottee on 16/4/2010, along with minutes of the meeting of Board of Directors, affidavits, undertakings of the complainants. On the application of Sri Rajinder Nath dtd. 16/4/2010, the opposite parties endorsed the names of the complainants over said Unit after charging Rs.573750.00 as transfer charges. Opposite party-1 issued a demand letter dtd. 29/9/2011, demanding Rs.286875.00 towards Enhanced External Development Charges and Rs.126225.00 towards Infrastructural Development Charges. The complainants asked the opposite parties to supply the demand of statutory authority relating to EEDC & IDC, which was not supplied. As per demand of opposite party-1, the complainants deposited Rs.25145.00 as Service Tax on 15/10/2012, Rs.813769.00 on 15/10/2012 as 10th instalment, Rs.25145.00 on 4/3/2013 as Service Tax and Rs.813769.00 on 4/3/2013 as 11th instalment. Opposite party-1 issued a demand letter dtd. 16/7/2013, demanding Rs.218255.00 towards EEDC and Rs.126225.00 towards IDC, without providing the documents relating to deposit of EEDC & IDC. Opposite party-1, vide letter dtd. 16/7/2013, offered for fit-out possession for carrying out internal finishing work. Opposite party-1 issued notice of possession vide letter dtd. 20/8/2015, with demand of Rs.1909905.00 under different heads. The complainants inspected the flat and found several short coming/deficiency in construction. The complainants, vide letter dtd. 24/9/2015, pointed out short coming in kitchen, toilets, woodwork, internal walls, polishing and painting etc. and also protested against demands. Opposite party-1 sent reminders dtd. 13/11/2015, 16/2/2016 and 1/8/2016, in respect of demand, along with interest. The complainants, vide email dtd. 8/4/2016, replied that as no reply of their letter dtd. 24/9/2015 was given as such they were not able to proceed further. The complainants vide letter dtd. 12/8/2016, gave a detail reply. Then the complaint was filed on 13/10/2017, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice inasmuch as (i) As per clause-9.1 of the agreement, possession had to be given within 36 month with grace period of 90 days, which period expired on 24/8/2009 but the possession was unreasonably delayed as such the complainants are entitled for interest @24% per annum on their deposit for the delayed period. (ii) At the time of offer of fit-out possession on 16/7/2013, kitchen, toilets, woodwork, internal walls, polishing and painting etc. were incomplete and rebate offered in this respect was disproportionate to actual estimated cost. (iii) Amenities of club, health club, gym, play room, kids play ground etc. were not ready. (iv) Demand of Rs.1269734.00 in the head of increase in 'super area' was illegal as no consent of the home buyers was taken for changing layout plan. (v) Demand of additional amount of Rs.218255.00 towards EEDC and Rs.126225.00 towards IDC, without providing the documents relating to deposit of EEDC & IDC was illegal. (vi) The complainants are not liable to pay the taxes levied/charged after due date of possession. (vii) Various clauses of agreement are arbitrary, one sided and unenforceable.