JAMIT KAUR Vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Praveen Bahadur, Advocate, for the opposite party.

(2.) Jamit Kaur alias Jamit Kaur Teji has filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to (i) refund Rs.9661585.66 with interest @18% per annum, from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund; (ii) pay Rs.1000000.00 as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay Rs.500000.00 as litigation costs; and (vi) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The complainant stated that DLF Universal Limited (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. The opposite party launched a group housing project in the name of "Hyde Park Terraces" at village Mullanpur, New Chandigarh, Punjab, in the year, 2012 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities. Believing upon the representations of the opposite party, the complainant booked an independent floor on 10/9/2012 and deposited booking amount of Rs.600000.00. The opposite party allotted Unit No.IF-R-1-409-FF, saleable area 1881 sq.ft. + Car Parking P-R-1-E-409-FF, basic sale price Rs.8065049.04 (inclusive Service Tax, PLC, EDC, IBMS), vide Allotment Letter dtd. 15/9/2012. Annexure-II of the booking application provides payment plans. The complainant opted for "construction link payment plan", under which, 95% of consideration was payable with 27 months. The allotment letter mentioned "2.5 years Plan". The opposite party executed Floor Buyer Agreement (FBA) in favour of the complainant on 6/8/2013. Clause-11(a) of the FBA provides 30 months period from the date of the application, for completion of construction. For timely payment of the instalments, the complainant took a loan of Rs.3000000.00 from Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited on 12/3/2014. The complainant paid the instalments on time as per demand of the opposite party and deposited Rs.9720946.15 till July, 2016. There had been mismatch between the amount of instalment as mentioned in Annexure-II of Booking Application and Annexure-III of the FBA with the demand letters issued by the opposite party. Due date of possession expired in March, 2015. The opposite party vide email dtd. 16/2/2016, informed that they were dispatching offer of possession and registration letter with final statement of account and demanded Rs.2207747.20 towards balance consideration, which included Rs.303677.00 as Other charges, Rs.231338.00 as Escalation charges, Rs.123804.00 as Contingent deposit for VAT, Rs.75000.00 as Club charges, Rs.20000.00 as Club security deposit. Apart from it, Rs.95000.00, towards IBMS, Rs.8778.00 one quarter advance CAM, Rs.1273.00 total Rs.105051.00 payable to 'Hyde Park Residents Welfare Society' were demanded. Demand of Rs.123804.00 "contingent deposit of VAT "was not mentioned in the agreement. The opposite party did not give information in respect of deposit of VAT. The opposite party demanded Rs.75525.00 for increased area and PLC on it but has not given any basis as to how area has been increased. The opposite party demanded Rs.75000.00 as Club charges and Rs.20000.00 as Club Security Deposit although construction of club building was not started by that time. The opposite party demanded Rs.303677.00 as "Other Charges" but did not provide the details of amount deposited in this head. The opposite party demanded Rs.105051.00 for 'Hyde Park Residents Welfare Society', which was not mentioned in the agreement. The complainant has paid Rs.270625.51 as 'service tax', Rs.123804.00 as 'VAT' since September, 2012. Swatchh Bharat Cess was levied since November, 2015. The complainant, vide emails dtd. 10/3/2016 and 15/3/2016, demanded certificate of Charted Accountant in respect of demands made as per Clause-1.12 of the FBA, price index of RBI, for examining escalation of price and delay compensation. The opposite party, vide email dtd. 10/3/2016, extended the period for deposit of the amount as demanded vide email dtd. 16/2/2016 till 10/4/2016. The opposite party called upon the complainant to inspect the flat and if there was any snag, to inform to 'Jones Lang Lasalle'. The complainant inspected the flat on 1/6/2016 and found that basic structure was not done properly. The complainant informed the staff of 'Jones Lang Lasalle' in respect of various deficiencies in construction, in writing on 6/6/2016, who assured to remove the deficiencies within 15 days. The complainant also informed about the snags to the opposite party on 6/6/2016 vide email along with its photographs. However, 'Jones Lang Lasalle' failed to remove the deficiencies. The complainant again gave an email to the opposite party in this respect on 4/7/2016. The opposite party through email dtd. 16/7/2017, gave a reminder for deposit of the demanded amount. The complainant replied vide email dtd. 17/7/2016 that snags be removed then she would take possession. The opposite party, vide email dtd. 19/7/2016, informed that possession may be taken before registration of the sale deed. The complainant again vide email dtd. 29/7/2016 requested to remove snags as pointed out on 6/6/2016. In spite of various emails, the opposite party did not respond about rectifying deficiencies in construction, then this complaint was filed on 14/5/2018, for refund, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.