EMAAR MGF LAND LTD Vs. DILSHAD GILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants/Opposite Parties have filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act'), challenging order dated 02.05.2014, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (for short, 'State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No.17 of 2014, partly allowing the complaint of the Respondent/Complainant.

(2.) Brief facts are, that respondent wanted to move into a residential house in Tri-City Area, being allured by the advertisements of the appellants. There were some individuals, who were willing to transfer their units by entering into an independent agreement with the approval of the appellants One Sh. Jagmohan Marwaha, owner of unit bearing No TVM J1-F05-501, was interested in transferring his unit alongwith all the amount already deposited by him with the appellants. Respondent entered into an independent agreement with said Sh. Jagmohan and paid the amount, which Shri Jagmohan had paid to the appellants. Thereafter, respondent was nominated as owner of the aforesaid unit, vide letter dated 26.11.2011 of the appellants. The price of unit was Rs.51,42,750/-, out of which Rs.43,78,962/- stood already deposited with appellants as on 26.11.2011. The respondent paid another amount of Rs.87,500/- on 21.11.2011, Therefore, when respondent asked for any agreement to be signed, she was told that the agreement executed between Sh. Jagmohan Marwaha, and appellants, shall be applicable to her (respondent). The remaining amount was to be deposited, after the possession was given. It is further stated, that respondent received letter dated 13.5.2013 from the appellants, whereby she was asked to deposit Rs.3,05,969.70Ps within 30 days. The appellants told the respondent that since construction linked installment plan was opted, therefore, the remaining installments were to be paid, at the time of delivery of possession. The respondent submitted a written representation and asked to supply copy of the agreement and payment schedule alongwith other relevant documents but of no avail.

(3.) Thereafter, appellants vide letter dated 16.8.2013, arbitrarily increased the price of the unit, to Rs.60,83,543/- and asked the respondent to remit, total amount of Rs.18,38,829/- i.e. [(Rs.8,86,436 for revised area, Rs.8,23,081/- as 5% of basic &5% of EDC including applicable service tax, Rs.26,762/- as delayed interest and Rs.1,02,550/- as IFMS (Interest Free Maintenance Security) @Rs.50/- per sq. ft.]. Respondent refused to deposit the said amount and gave another representation dated 22.8.2013, but no action was taken on it. Thereafter, respondent contacted the original allottee and requested him to supply copy of contract, who informed that he had deposited all the documents with the appellants. Thereafter, appellants gave an agreement which was not signed by the respondent. However, it was endorsed in her favour.