AMANDEEP KAUR Vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant / appellant booked a residential plot with the respondent in a project namely Hyde Park, Estate at Village Salamtpur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar of Punjab and plot No. HPE-R1-A112 measuring 350 sq. yds. was allotted to her vide allotment letter dated 31.3.2011. As per the down payment plan opted by the appellant / complainant, Rs.12.00 lacs were to be paid at the time of booking and 95% of the total price and 95% of the EDC were to be paid within 45 days. The balance 5% payment along with the other charges was to be paid on the offer of possession. Since the plot allotted to the complainant was situated at a preferential location, a sum of Rs.9,80,051.36 had been demanded as preferential location charges from her. The complainant vide letter dated 15.5.2011, while making payment of Rs.67,94,447.50, maintained that since no preference was indicated by her in the application form, preferential location charges were not applicable. She also conveyed her consent for change of the plot from a preferential location to a non-preferential location. Vide letter dated 12.4.2012, the respondent changed the plot allotted to the complainant from HPE-R1-A112 to HPE-R-1-E307 and transferred the payment made by her to the new account. The parties then entered into a buyers agreement dated 25.7.2012. While issuing the revised allotment letter it was stated that the club charges of Rs.76,000/- were also payable as applicable, in addition to the sale consideration of Rs.87,76,911.68. As per the buyers agreement the possession of the plot was to be delivered within twenty four months of the execution of the said agreement. The possession of the plot was eventually offered to the complainant vide letter dated 03.7.2015. While offering possession to the complainant, a sum of Rs.20,41,614.26 was demanded from her. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,46,246/- on 31.7.2015 along with payment of Rs.40,123/- comprising Rs.32,737.89 towards delayed interest and Rs.7,385.11 towards EDC. Being aggrieved from the amount demanded by the respondent, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the respondent. The delay in execution of the buyers agreement was sought to be justified on the ground that the said delay had taken place due to request of the complainant for change of the plot allotted to her.

(3.) The State Commission vide impugned order dated 18.8.2016 directed as under: