BRIJ MOHAN MITTAL Vs. BPTP LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") against Opposite Party M/s. BPTP Limited (hereinafter referred to as Builder).

(2.) "a) Deliver the possession of plot No. E23, BPTP Parkland Faridabad, to Complainant @7000/- per sq. yard, in instalments;

(3.) The Opposite Party Builder filed its written version and submitted that the Complainants had not approached this Commission with clean hands. It was submitted that one Mr. Surender Pal Kalra booked a plot in their Project @7450/- per sq. yard as Basic Sale Price (BSP) apart from various other charges like External Development Charges (EDC), Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) and PLC etc. and being transferee the Complainants stepped into his shoes knowing this fact and had also agreed to BSP @7450/-per sq. yard. It was also submitted that clause (e) of the Application for Provisional Registration does not guarantee allotment of a Plot. Since they are developing huge area, they are offering possession of the Plots in phases. It was also submitted that due to change in the layout plan, Plot No. E 35 - 1, allotted to the Complainants was changed to Plot No. B-17-07. But due to Complainants unwillingness to accept the said Plot and since the Complainants wanted a Plot on a road of 24 mtr./ 30 mtr. /45 mtr., Plot No. E-23 admeasuring 939 sq. yard was offered to them which was duly accepted by the Complainants. After various meetings, negotiations and oral agreements between the representatives of both the Parties it was agreed that the excess area of the plot would be charged at prevailing market price. It was further submitted that Accounts Department of the Builder inadvertently issued the letter offering possession of the Plot No. E-23 demanding unit price for the entire plot @7450/- per sq. yard. Although the said letter was withdrawn yet the Complainants wanted to take advantage of bonafide mistake committed by the Builder. An MOU was entered between the Parties on 27/2/2017 and the cost of the excess area of 689 sq. was agreed to be fixed @ 10,000/- per sq. yard however, the prevailing market price was 25,000/- per sq. yard. The said MOU was duly witnessed by the Complainants' son Mr. Ankit Mittal, Advocate. It was further submitted that the Complainants do not want to adhere to the terms of the MOU dtd. 27/2/2017. The Complainants filed Complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat, Faridabad, where various plots of different sizes and locations were offered to the Complainants. The Complainants selected Plot No. E-23 of 939 sq. yards. The Builder allotted Plot No. E-23 to the Complainants. But the Complainants did not honour the commitments of paying the price of excess area at the prevailing market price due to which the matter could not be settled and Permanent Lok Adalat returned the Complaint to the Complainants vide Order dtd. 10/8/2016. It was further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that the Consumer Complaint be dismissed.