Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. Agrawal, President, M. Shreesha, Member
AERENS JAI REALITY PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Vs.
DALIP SINGH ARSHI - Respondent
First Appeal No. 923 of 2018 (Against Order dated 16.2.2018 in Complaint No. 903 of 2015 of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
Decided On : 13-12-2018
For the Appellant :Ms. Kadambari and Ms. Mansi, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Bhavneet Singh, Advocate
The demand for preferential location charges (PLC) was illegal and unjustified, and the Developer's act of forfeiting 20% of the amount paid amounted to unfair trade practice.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 19 - [Section 19] - The court discussed the illegal demand of preferential location charges (PLC) by the Developer, the forfeiture of earnest money, and the delayed possession of the property. The court held that the demand for PLC was illegal and unjustified, and the Developer's act of forfeiting 20% of the amount paid amounted to unfair trade practice. The court also emphasized that the Developer's failure to complete the construction within a reasonable period deprived the Complainant of alternative accommodation and entitled the Complainant to a reasonable interest rate.
Fact of the Case:
The Complainant booked a property and paid 25% of the total sale consideration. The Developer demanded preferential location charges (PLC) and issued a notice of cancellation. The Complainant sought possession, withdrawal of cancellation notice, compensation, and cost of litigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the demand for PLC illegal, the act of forfeiting 20% of the amount paid as unfair trade practice, and the Developer's failure to complete construction within a reasonable period as a deprivation of alternative accommodation for the Complainant.
Issues: Demand for PLC, forfeiture of earnest money, delayed possession, and entitlement to interest rate.
Ratio Decidendi: The demand for PLC was illegal and unjustified, the act of forfeiting 20% of the amount paid amounted to unfair trade practice, and the Developer's failure to complete construction within a reasonable period entitled the Complainant to a reasonable interest rate.
Final Decision: The Appeal by the Developer was dismissed, and the Appeal by the Complainant was allowed in part, increasing the interest rate from 10% to 12% p.a. and awarding costs of Rs. 25,000.
ORDER :
M. Shreesha, Member. - Aggrieved by the order dated 16.2.2018 in Consumer Complaint No. 903 of 2015 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short "the State Commission"), the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as "the Developer") and the Complainant preferred First Appeal No. 923 of 2018 and First Appeal No. 1091 of 2018 respectively under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has directed the Developer to refund Rs. 12,75,000 with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of refund within one month.
2. The facts in brief are that the Complainant booked a property bearing No. F-15, Rose illas/Lotus Floors in Aerens Jai City, Jagashari, which was a corner one facing the park as shown in the project map and brochure and paid Rs. 12,75,000 i.e. 25% of the total sale consideration of Rs. 51,00,000. It is averred that the Complainant duly complied with the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the preferential location charges (PLC) was never part of the Agreement which is clearly transpired from the earlier letter dated 15.3.2011, which is addressed to the Complainant, stating PLC if any as 'nil'. But subsequently, with a mala fide intention another letter dated 3.5.2011 was sent, with PLC as 5%, acknowledging the payment also with another letter dated 21.7.2011. The Developer sent one more letter on 15.06.2011 with PLC @ 10% over and above the agreed cost and subsequently issued final demand notice. It is pleaded that when the Complainant confronted the Developer with the Original Agreement, there was no response and thereafter the Developer sent him a frivolous notice. It was assured that the possession of the Tower would be given in two years but the Developer failed to handover the allotment letter and the possession within stipulated period. The project was to be completed by January 2013, but till date the construction is incomplete.
3. It is pleaded that the Developer in violation of the payment plan has sent an illegal notice claiming a sum of Rs. 2,78,631 towards PLC charges, when no such charges were part of the terms agreed to at the time of the booking. It is only to cover up the delay in completing the construction that the question of payment of PLC charges was raised. The Developer has issued a notice of cancellation vide letter dated 20.7.2013 after accepting an amount of Rs. 12,75,000 specifically stating that an amount of Rs. 2,78,631 is to be paid within 7 days on receipt of notice, failing which the allotment would be cancelled. The Complainant replied to the said notice vide letter dated 27.7.2017 stating that the Complainant is not liable to pay the PLC charges as it was never informed to him at the time of booking. Vexed with the attitude of the Developer the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint seeking the following reliefs before the State Commission:
"(a) Direct the respondents to handover the allotment letter as well as possession of the Tower forthwith with all legal formalities including after accepting the balance consideration.
(b) Respondent be directed to withdraw the impugned cancellation notice.
(c) Award compensation in terms of money quantified at Rs. 10,00,000 towards damages, losses, hardship, mental trauma, opportunity, loss, anxiety, etc. suffered by the Complainant on account of the acts and omission and deficiency in service, negligence jointly and severally of the Respondents/ Opposite Parties as detailed in the Complaint.
(d) Award cost of litigation in favour of the Complainant.
(e) Pass such other and further order/s as this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. The State Commission had closed the right of the Developer to file their Written Version as notice was served on 22.3.2016 and though the Developer was represented by a Counsel Mr. Rishab Mehta, and the copy of the complaint was supplied
