Back
2009(2) CPR 248
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member
Sadguru Land Finance & Anr. –Appellants
versus
Sanjay Kumar Goenka –Respondent
Appeal No. F.A.875/2007
Decided on 26-8-2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjeev Nirwani, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where a demand was raised in accordance with agreement between parties, it would not constitute deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Deficiency in service in non-delivery of possession of plot despite its 95% cost price had been paid—Further demand of Rs.3,33,576/- raised by appellant was alleged to be illegal—District Forum allowed complaint holding appellant unjustified in raising demand of Rs.3,33,576/- —Appeal—Agreement between parties stipulated that complainant allottee was to made payment of external development charges—Other allottees had make those payment—Demand in question raised by appellant was strictly in terms of the agreement—Impugned order was liable to be set aside and respondent on making payment of Rs.3,33,576/- to be handed over the possession of plot. (Paras 5 & 6)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member—The complaint filed by the Respondent before the District Forum was disposed of vide order dated 4th October, 2007 holding the Appellant guilty of deficiency in service in raising unjustified demand of Rs.1,54,976 and, thereafter, raising it to Rs.3,33,576. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant has filed the instant appeal.
2. The complainant’s case before the District Forum in brief was that he had booked a plot of 100 sq. yds. with the OP @ Rs.1,100 per sq. yds. and had paid a sum of Rs.1,04,500 to the OP upto 30th June, 1992. 5% of the balance amount of sale consideration was to be paid at the time of demarcation of the plot. However, despite having paid 95% of the total value of the plot, the Respondent noticed that Appellant had not carried out any development work. The Respondent approached the Appellant several times but to no avail. On 3rd March, 2006, the Respondent received a notice/letter from the Appellant calling upon the Respondent to pay a total sum of Rs;1,54,976 as the balance amount so that possession letter could be issued in favour of the Respondent. The Respondent approached the Appellant for reducing the amount but instead the Appellant sent another letter calling Upon the Respondent to pay an enhanced sum of Rs.3,33,576 instead of Rs.1,54,976. Thus the respondent was constrained to file a complaint before the District Forum praying for appropriate directions.
3. The Appellant contested the complaint. While justifying the demand, it was stated by the Appellant that the rate of land was Rs.1,20,600 and as such the Respondent was liable to pay an amount of Rs.13,100 as the remaining amount of cost of land. As regards the other demands raised towards the registration, maintenance and other charges it was alleged that the same were raised in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement and as such there was no deficiency of service on its part.
4. The learned District Forum however held the demands made by the Appellants for the sum of Rs.1,54,976 and Rs.3,33,576 to be unjustified and directed the Appellant to withdraw the same. The said finding has been challenged by the Appellant on the ground that it was entitled to recover the said sum in terms of the Agreement, the clauses of which have not been taken into consideration by the District Forum while passing the impugned order. The relevant terms of the Agreement read as under:
(5) The above agreed price of the plot covers development of internal services such as laying of roads, laying of water lines, laying of sewer lines, etc. within the peripheral limits of the Colony. The charges for laying and providing external development and/or peripherial services such as water, sewer, storm water drains, roads, electricity, horticulture, etc. to be provided by the Seller and/or by any Government agency or local authority for any bigger zone shall be calculated and intimated to the Purchaser later. Such charges levied by any Government agency or local authority shall be paid by the Purchaser to the Seller on demand. If however, at the time of the Sale Deeds, no such demand has been made by the Seller, the Sale Deed shall contain a provision to the effect that the Purchaser shall pay the same to appropriate authority/Government Agency such sum as may be demanded by it. Similarly, any other levy or charges of any nature whatsoever made by any Government/local authority in respect of the plot agreed to be sold shall also be borne by the Purchaser. In case a consolidated demand for the whole Colony is made, the same shall be apportioned to the various Purchasers on the basis of the area agreed to be purchased by them and the apportionment so made by the Seller shall be final and binding on the Purchaser.
(12) The Purchaser shall also pay to the Seller such charges as may be determined by the Seller for maintaining various services/facilities in the Colony until the same are handed over to the Ghazia
