Manu Sehgal v. TDI Infratech Ltd.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

1. Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 Date of institution : 04.01.2017 Reserved on : 04.04.2018 Date of decision : 13.04.2018

1. Manu Sehgal s/o Shri Mulkh Raj Sehgal,

2. Mrs. Rajni w/o Manu Sehgal, Both r/o # 2 BHK Flat No.B-702, 7th Floor, Tower-B, Wellington Heights, TDI City, Mohali, Sector 117, Mohali, Punjab. .Complainants Versus

1. TDI Infratech Limited earlier known as M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., 10 Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001, through its Chairman, Shri Ravinder Taneja.

2. TDI Infratech Limited earlier known as M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., Marketing Office Sector 117, TDI City, Mohali, District Mohali 140 301 through its C.E.O. Shri Deepak Nayyar.

3. M/s Cannes Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Maintenance Agency for WELLINGTON HEIGHTS-1, TDI City, Mohali, Sector 117, SAS Nagar, Mohali, 140 301 through its Operating Head, Manjeet Singh.

4. Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, SCO No.9-10, Sector 68, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab. Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017

5. Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, (GMADA), PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab). ..Opposite Parties

2. Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2017 Date of institution : 07.03.2017 Reserved on : 04.04.2018 Date of decision : 13.04.2018

1. Promila Sahni wife of Late Shri S.N. Sahni, R/o Flat No.G- 0302, 3rd Floor, Tower-G, Wellington Heights, TDI City, Mohali, Sector 117, Mohali, Punjab.

2. Rohit Vivek son of Late Shri S.N. Sahni, R/o Flat No.G-0302, 3rd Floor, Tower-G, Wellington Heights, TDI City, Mohali, Sector 117, Mohali, Punjab. .Complainants Versus

1. TDI Infratech Limited (Formerly, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.), 10 Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001, through its Chairman.

2. TDI Infratech Limited (Formerly, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.), Marketing Office, SCO No.144-145, Airport Road, Sector 117, TDI City, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Authorized Representative/Chief Executive Officer.

3. M/s Cannes Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Maintenance Agency for WELLINGTON HEIGHTS-1, TDI City, Mohali, Sector 117, SAS Nagar, Mohali, 140 301 through its Operating Head. Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017

4. Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, SCO No.9-10, Sector 68, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

5. Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, (GMADA), PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab). ..Opposite Parties

3. Consumer Complaint No.131 of 2017 Date of institution : 07.03.2017 Reserved on : 04.04.2018 Date of decision : 13.04.2018 Ms. Jeeny Sharma D/o Shri Naresh K. Sharma, R/o 3 BHK Flat No.H-201, 2nd Floor, Tower-H, WELLINGTON HEIGHTS-1, TDI City, Mohali (Punjab) through her General Power of Attorney Naresh Kumar Sharma s/o Late Shri Jagan Nath Sharma, R/o 3 BHK Flat No.H-201, 2nd Floor, Tower-H, Wellington Heights-1, TDI City, Mohali (Punjab). .Complainants Versus

1. TDI Infratech Limited (Formerly, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.), 10 Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001, through its Chairman.

2. TDI Infratech Limited (Formerly, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.), Marketing Office, SCO No.144-145, Airport Road, Sector 117, TDI City, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Authorized Representative/Chief Executive Officer.

3. M/s Cannes Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Maintenance Agency for WELLINGTON HEIGHTS-1, TDI City, Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 Mohali, Sector 117, SAS Nagar, Mohali, 140 301 through its Operating Head.

4. Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, SCO No.9-10, Sector 68, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

5. Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, (GMADA), PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab). ..Opposite Parties

4. Consumer Complaint No.132 of 2017 Date of institution : 07.03.2017 Reserved on : 04.04.2018 Date of decision : 13.04.2018

1. Nidhi Dhiman wife of Shashi Bhushan;

2. Shashi Bhushan son of Chaman Lal, Both R/o Flat No.B-802, 8th Floor, Tower-B, Wellington Heights, TDI City, Mohali, Sector 117, Mohali, Punjab. .Complainants Versus

1. TDI Infratech Limited (Formerly, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.), 10 Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001, through its Chairman.

2. TDI Infratech Limited (Formerly, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.), Marketing Office, Sector 117, TDI City, Mohali, District Mohali-140 301 through its Authorized Representative/C.E.O.

3. M/s Cannes Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Maintenance Agency for WELLINGTON HEIGHTS-1, TDI City, Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 Mohali, Sector 117, SAS Nagar, Mohali, 140 301 through its Operating Head, Manjeet Singh.

4. Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, (GMADA), PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab). ..Opposite Parties

5. Consumer Complaint No.133 of 2017 Date of institution : 07.03.2017 Reserved on : 04.04.2018 Date of decision : 13.04.2018

1. Sharat Pathak s/o Dr. Suraj Pathak, r/o Flat No.E-0602, 6th Floor, Tower-E, Wellington Heights-1, TDI City, Mohali, Sector 117, Mohali, Punjab.

2. Mrs. Shipra Pathak w/o Sharat Pathak r/o Flat No.E-0602, 6th Floor, Tower-E, Wellington Heights-1, TDI City, Mohali, Sector 117, Mohali, Punjab. .Complainants Versus

1. TDI Infratech Limited (Formerly, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.), 10 Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001, through its Chairman, Shri Ravinder Taneja.

2. TDI Infratech Limited (Formerly, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.), Marketing Office, Sector 117, TDI City, Mohali, District Mohali 140 301 through its C.E.O. Shri Deepak Nayyar. Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017

3. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, (GMADA), PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) through its Chief Administrator. ..Opposite Parties

6. Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2017 Date of institution : 04.09.2017 Reserved on : 04.04.2018 Date of decision : 13.04.2018

1. Amar Nath s/o Late Shri Sher Chand r/o Flat No.G-0603, 6th Floor, Tower-G, Wellington Heights-1, TDI City, Mohali, Sector 117, Mohali, Punjab.

2. Mrs. Raman w/o Shri Amar Nath, r/o Flat No.G-0603, 6th Floor, Tower-G, Wellington Heights-1, TDI City, Mohali, Sector 117, Mohali, Punjab. .Complainants Versus

1. TDI Infratech Limited (Formerly, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.), 10 Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001, through its Chairman, Shri Ravinder Taneja.

2. TDI Infratech Limited (Formerly, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.), Marketing Office, Sector 117, TDI City, Mohali, District Mohali 140 301 through its C.E.O. Shri Deepak Nayyar.

3. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, (GMADA), PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) through its Chief Administrator. ..Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017

7. Consumer Complaint No.759 of 2017 Date of institution : 04.09.2017 Reserved on : 04.04.2018 Date of decision : 13.04.2018

1. Arun Rana (aged about 29 years) s/o Kishori Lal Rana r/o Flat No.C-0101 (01 Floor, C Tower), Wellington Heights-1, TDI City, Mohali, Sector 117, Mohali, Punjab.

2. Kavita Saini (aged about 28 years) d/o Padam Saini, r/o Flat No.C-0101 (01 Floor, C Tower), Wellington Heights-1, TDI City, Mohali, Sector 117, Mohali, Punjab. .Complainants Versus

1. TDI Infratech Limited (Formerly, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.), 10 Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001, through its Chairman, Shri Ravinder Taneja.

2. TDI Infratech Limited (Formerly, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.), Marketing Office, Sector 117, TDI City, Mohali, District Mohali 140 301 through its C.E.O. Shri Deepak Nayyar.

3. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, (GMADA), PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) through its Chief Administrator. ..Opposite Parties Consumer Complaints under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 Quorum:- Honble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Present:- For the complainants : Shri P.K. Saini, Advocate. For opposite parties Nos.1&2: Shri Puneet Tuli, Advocate. For opposite party No.3 :Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate For opposite party No.4 : Ex parte. For opposite party No.5 : Shri Anuj Kohli, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT: All the above mentioned 7 Consumer Complaints are being decided by this common order, as common questions of law and facts, except some minor variations, here and there, are involved in these complaints. The facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017.

2. The complainants, Manu Sehgal and Mrs. Rajni, husband and wife, have filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, C.P. Act) for issuance of following directions to opposite parties Nos.1 and 2:-

i) to execute conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question without demanding VAT charges from the complainants; ii) to refund `1,00,000/- taken by opposite party-Company illegally as car parking space charges; iii) to refund `95,308/-, as excess EDC charges retained by opposite party-Company; iv) to refund `73,900/- taken by opposite party-Company illegally as Service Tax; arrear and interest;

v) to refund `2,07,294/- taken by opposite party-Company illegally as escalation charges; Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 vi) to refund `50,000/- taken by opposite party-Company illegally as Club Membership Charges; vii) to refund `25,000/- deposited by the complainants as Maintenance Security with opposite party No.3; viii) to refund `1,50,000/- incurred by the complainants on replacement of electric items, sliding glass doors and repaint of walls; ix) to pay interest on the above said amounts totaling `6,11,502/- at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of deposit till realization;

x) to pay `2,00,000/- against use of sub-standard electric items, sliding doors, pipes, CP fitting, tiles, sink and steel metal mesh in the kitchen; xi) to pay `2,00,000/- against deficiency in sewerage connection; xii) to pay `1,00,000/- against sub-standard pipes used in ducts. xiii) to check all defects in the kitchen, bathrooms, pipes in ducts as mentioned above and find a proper solution and all P.V.C. HDPE pipe lines be replaced with G.I. pipes and cast-iron sewerage pipe lines; xiv) to provide Club facilities in Group Housing Society of Wellington Height-1 and shopping complex as per commitment; Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 xv) to pay `2,00,000/- for recurring mental harassment on account of compromise being made for the common facilities such as not providing Club Facilities, Healthcare Centre, School and Shopping Complex for daily needs in Group Housing Society of Wellington Height-1 to the complainants; xvi) to pay compensation of `4,00,000/- for risk of life of the complainants and his family members as well as of goods, due to cracks caused in load bearing pillars and beams of the tower/building of Wellington Height-1 (which is visible from photographs attached as Annexure C-15) and due to disposal of drainage and sewerage water in open area (as shown in Annexure C-13 and as explained in para 19 of present complaint) causing serious health hazard and dangerous disease, like dengue/viral fewer, chikengunya etc.; and xvii) to pay `33,000/- as cost of litigation. Facts of the Complaint:

3. Opposite parties Nos.1 and 2-Company (hereinafter to be referred to as, opposite party-Company) is engaged in the business of Real Estate Development and purchased land in and around Village Ballomajra, Baliyali and Daun, SAS Nagar in the State of Punjab. The opposite party-Company developed the same into an integrated township (colony) and a Group Housing Complex under the name and style of WELLINGTON HEIGHTS in TDI City, Sector 117, SAS Nagar, Mohali after getting approval from opposite party Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 No.5 and after getting the revised layout plan of the said land approved from the competent authority. It is averred that the opposite party-Company represented that TDI City, Mohali is the truly international township providing a new living experience at par with international standards and WELLINGTON HEIGHTS-A Symphony of style and function-Plush well planned interiors, round the clock security, open/stilt parking, aesthetically laid out park, segregated childrens play-out areas, jogging track, earthquake resistant RCC structure, all daily needs available next door, schools and Healthcare centre in the vicinity and connected with 200 feet wide Airport Road. The opposite party-Company gave wide publicity for sale of 2, 3 and 4 BHK apartments. It is further averred that the complainants purchased 2 BHK Flat No.B-0702, 7th Floor, Tower-B, Wellington Heights, TDI City, Sector 117-119, Mohali on 7.1.2015 by way of transfer from the earlier allottee Gaurav Sharma after paying the requisite transfer fee to the opposite party-Company and after making upto date payments to him, which he had made to the opposite party-Company for allotment/purchase of the flat in question. Thereafter the opposite party-Company had issued allotment letter with transfer date 7.1.2015 to the complainants containing description of the flat in question and executed Apartment Buyers Agreement on the same day. It is further averred that on the same date, the complainants made payment of the balance amount towards the sale price and other charges of the Flat in question to the opposite party-Company as per the terms and conditions of the Apartment Buyers Agreement. In pursuance of the same, the Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 opposite party-Company issued possession letter dated 7.1.2015 to the complainants handing over possession of the flat in question to the complainants. One open/stilt car parking space number 30 was also allotted to the complainants. Thereafter the complainants started living in the Flat in question. It is further averred that since the complainants had made the full payment of the total price of the Flat/Apartment to the opposite party-Company before taking over the possession of the same, therefore, they had been requesting it to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed as per clause 10 of the Apartment Buyers Agreement in respect of the Flat/Apartment in question. However, the opposite party-Company had been delaying the same on one pretext or the other and finally it had issued letter dated 13.3.2015 to the complainants to deposit VAT charges of `1,16,597.42P against the flat in question. The complainants visited the office of the opposite party-Company and requested to provide the details of the VAT charges of `1,16,597.42P. However, the representatives of opposite party-Company refused to do so and verbally told that until and unless they deposit above mentioned VAT charges, the sale deed/conveyance deed regarding the flat in question would not be executed in their favour. It is further averred that the complainants along with other flat buyers had made applications under the RTI Act to opposite party No.5 for giving complete order for VAT recovery issued by him. However, opposite party No.5 refused to do so, vide letter dated 12.12.2015. It is further averred that the opposite party-Company issued Final Statement of Account dated 10.9.2016 showing the Basic Price and Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 all other charges in respect of the Flat in question. The complainants paid the Basic Price and all other charges except the VAT charges `1,16,59742P and VAT interest of `10,935/- because this demand of the opposite party-Company is illegal and tantamount to unfair trade practice since the possession of the flat/apartment was handed over after receiving the full price thereof. It is further averred that the opposite party-Company charged `1,00,000/- for car parking space (stilt `50,000/- and Open `50,000/-) as per Item-E of Annexure C-7 from the complainants for allotment of Car Parking Stilt/Space without providing adequate car parking space as per Punjab Government Revised Parking Norms because the opposite party- Company has no right to sell stilt parking spaces as those are not apartments as per the definition given in the Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995 and other applicable Act and Rules. It is further averred that as per Final Statement of Account (Annexure C7), at Item-B, the opposite party-Company had charged a sum of `1,42,962/- on account of External Development Charges (EDC) on the Super Area of 1192.35 square feet @ `120/- per square foot and later on competent authority reduced it to `40/- per square foot, which came to `47,654/- and after deducting it from the already paid amount of `1,42,962/- the remaining amount of `95,308/- has not been adjusted towards any other item and this goes to prove that the opposite party-Company has embezzled this amount of `47,654/-, which is illegal and tantamount to unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to the refund of `95,308/- with interest Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 @ 21% per annum from the date of its receipt till the date of refund. It is further averred that the opposite party-Company had illegally charged from the complainants a sum of `72,676/- as Service Tax and `1,124/- totaling `73,800/-, as Service Tax interest, which amounts to unfair trade practice. The opposite party-Company is not entitled to charge Service Tax from the complainants because it had not given the work/contract to any other builder rather it itself had constructed the flat in question. Therefore, the opposite party- Company is liable to refund the above said arrears of Service Tax and interest amounting to `73,800/- along with interest @ 21% per annum from the date of receipt till realization. It is further averred that as per Item I of the Final Statement of Account, the opposite party-Company charged a sum of `2,07,294.90P on account of Escalation Charges on the super area of 1191.35 square feet @ `174/- per square foot without giving any details and reasons. However, opposite party-Company had not charged these charges from the other flat buyers and as such, the action of the opposite party-Company is arbitrary and discriminatory. Therefore, the opposite party-Company is liable to refund the above said amount of `2,07,294/- along with interest @ 21% per annum from the date of receipt till realization. It is further averred that before handing over physical possession of the flat in question the opposite party- Company had charged from the complainants a sum of `50,000/- as Club Membership Charges. This payment is not a part of the terms and conditions of the Apartment Buyers Agreement. However, Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 when the complainants approached the opposite party-Company for providing the Club facilities for which they had paid `50,000/-, its representatives informed them that there is no Club House/building in the Group Housing Society of Wellington Height-1. However, provision has been made for a joint Club building at some other place. When the complainants visited the so-called Club building area on 26.9.2016, they found there only a hopeless uncompleted concrete structure with no work in progress, which is clear from the photographs attached with the complaint as Annexure C-9. Since it is situated at a distance of one kilometer from the flat of the complainants, therefore, the so-called Club building will be useless for them. Therefore, the opposite party-Company had collected huge amount @ `50,000/- from each flat owner in the name of Club Membership Charges and is utilizing this amount for its own profit earning motive. Therefore, this action of the opposite party- Company amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. As such, the complainants are entitled to refund of the above said Club Membership Charges of `50,000/- with interest @ 21% per annum from the date of receipt till realization. It is further averred that as per clause 10.1 of the Apartment Buyers Agreement, the complainants had executed the Tripartite Maintenance Agreement before taking over the physical possession of the flat in question and had paid a sum of `25,000/- towards Maintenance Security deposit to M/s Cannes Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. i.e. opposite party No.3. Besides this, the complainants are also regularly paying the maintenance charges calculated on quarterly basis. But no Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 interest accruing on the Maintenance Security of `25,000/- is being paid to the complainants nor the amount of such accrued interest is being adjusted or set off in the maintenance charges and as such, opposite party No.3 is earning interest on the Maintenance Security of `25,000/- in addition to charging maintenance charges levied on the complainants. There are 396 flats in the Society and amount of total Maintenance Security collected from all the flat owners comes to `1.12 Crore (approximately) and if the reciprocal interest @ 21% per annum as charged by opposite party No.3 is calculated on that amount, the total interest comes to `23,52,000/- per annum. Therefore, opposite party No.3 is liable to be directed to deduct the above said interest amount of `23,52,000/- from the Maintenance Charges in a year and the remaining amount should be recovered from flat owners on proportionate basis. Therefore, this action of opposite party No.3 tantamounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and as such, the complainants are entitled to the refund of the above said Maintenance Security of `25,000/- with interest @ 21% per annum from the date of receipt till realization of the amount and/or in the alternative, adjustment of the amount of such accrued interest towards the maintenance charges. It is further averred that since the date of taking physical possession of the flat in question the complainants have been requesting the opposite party- Company to supply them a copy of the completion certificate and thereafter also demanded the details of VAT charges but it has not provided the same for the reasons best known to it. It is further Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 averred that since from the time the complainants started living in the flat in question, many construction defects have come to light due to which the maintenance became very big problem. The defects are on account of use of sub-standard materials, bad workmanship, designing defects etc. which are very noticeable in the bathrooms, kitchen, service area water, sewerage lines, ducts and wooden doors of the flat. The complainants allege following deficiencies and defects:-

i) non-ISI mark electric goods of poor quality and colour have been used in the flat which were causing sparking while using them entailing risk to life and health hazards, some of which have been got replaced with standard quality by the complainants; ii) cracks had developed in the plaster on the inside walls of the flat. The complainants had got repaired those cracks and repaint of walls at their own cost; iii) sub-standard quality sliding glass doors (non-toughened) of below specified thickness had been provided towards balcony of each bedroom which had been a constant danger to life and health hazards to complainants and other family members. Therefore, the complainants have got them replaced with requisite standard at their own costs; iv) windows in the flat have been provided with sliding glass but without security grills and security grills have been got installed by the complainants at their own cost; Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017

v) non-ISI mark P.V.C./HDPE pipes of very poor quality have been used in the kitchen, bathrooms and sewerage lines which are leaking within the walls which have caused dampness along the walls, thereby forming fungus and sub-standard sink and steel metal mesh used in the kitchen; vi) sub-standard tiles of very poor quality and different colours have been used in the living / dining / lobby / passage / kitchen / bathrooms which give a very shabby look reducing the quality of life causing mental agony, which is contrary to the commitment of the opposite party-Company; vii) CP fittings in the bathrooms are leaking and are not ISI mark as per the commitment of the opposite party-Company; and viii) Wooden doors of bedrooms and locks affixed therein are of substandard quality and require immediate replacement. Thus, for replacement of some electric fitting like switch boards, sliding glass doors, repair of cracks and repaint of walls in their flat

i.e. (i) to (iv), the complainants have incurred an amount of `1,50,000/- and as such, the opposite party-Company is liable to pay the same and with regard to items at (v) to (viii) above, the opposite party-Company is liable to find a satisfactory solution to the above deficiencies and to pay an amount of `2,00,000/-, as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment, health hazards and mental agony. Some photographs showing seepage, leakage and dampness at the time of taking possession of the flat have been attached as Annexure C-10 with the complaint. It is further averred that the opposite party-Company has not connected the Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 underground drainage and sewerage water connection of the tower/colony to the main sewer because it has not been provided by the concerned authorities till the date of filing of the complaint and the same is discernable from the information provided by the concerned authorities under the RTI Act. As such, the opposite party-Company has not connected the underground drainage and sewerage water connection of the tower/colony to the main line, which is causing blockage in chambers and due to reverse flow the drainage and sewerage water used to stagnate and overflow into the open area of the tower/colony. As it is dirty water, it is giving bad smell attracting mosquitoes, flies etc. causing dangerous diseases like dengue/viral fever, chickengunya etc. and as such, this has become a serious health hazard for the residents. There is no arrangement for disposal of the drainage and sewerage water which is being thrown out from the manholes by pump sets in open space around the boundary wall of the towers which has caused cracks in the boundary wall at many places and seepage is visible near the main foundation of towers. Photographs showing the above said facts are annexed as Annexure C-11-A with the complaint. It is further averred that the ducts have been provided for passing of water, sanitary and sewerage pipes from top to bottom of the building with substandard HDPE pipes and bad workmanship which has resulted into leakage of water and sewerage with very bad smell through the duct from top to bottom giving bad smell attracting mosquitoes, flies etc. which is a serious health hazard for the complainants and other residents. Besides the above, there is Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 leakage in the bathrooms and kitchen which has caused dampness along the walls thereby forming fungus. Therefore, a direction is sought to opposite party-Company to check all these defects and find a proper solution and all P.V.C./HDPE pipelines be replaced with G.I. pipes and cast-iron sewerage pipelines and further to pay a sum of `2,00,000/- to the complainants towards harassment and mental agony suffered by them. Photographs have been attached with the complaint as Annexure C-12. It is further averred that the opposite party-Company is under statutory obligation for providing basic amenities and facilities as per its commitment made at the time of execution of Agreement i.e. Plush well planned interiors, round the clock security, open/stilt parking, aesthetically laid out park, segregated childrens play-out areas, jogging track, earthquake resistant RCC structure, all daily needs available next door, schools and healthcare centre in the vicinity but no such amenities have been provided. It is further averred that despite receiving `50,000/- as Club Membership Charges, no club facilities have been provided till date. Similarly, sufficient car parking stilt/open space has not been made available to each flat as per the Punjab Govt. Revised Parking Norms. One car parking stilt and one open Marked Car Parking space required to be allotted without any charges. Similarly no shopping centre or market for all daily needs is made available. It is further averred that the claim of the opposite party-Company of Wellington Height-I towers/flats being earthquake resistant RCC structure had fallen flat because the earthquake on 10.4.2016 had caused cracks in the load bearing pillars and beams of the Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 towers/building, which are clearly evident in the photographs attached with the complaint as Annexure C-13. The said visible cracks in column and beams of building have reduced the life of the building and are danger to life of residents. Therefore, a direction was sought to direct the opposite party-Company to find a permanent solution to the above problem. It is then averred that the complainants along with other residents have been raising these issues at all occasions and during various joint meetings between the residents and the opposite party-Company. However, the opposite party-Company has ignored all the requests for early completion of these facilities and has never made any serious effort towards completion of these long pending works. Therefore, the act and conduct of the opposite party-Company not only amounts to deficiency in service but also amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice, Monopolistic trade practice and also violative of Section 11 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. Hence, the present complaint for issuance of above mentioned directions to the opposite party-Company. Defence of Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2:

4. Upon notice opposite parties Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 put in their appearance. The parties filed their separate written replies but opposite party No.3 did not chose to file any reply despite sufficient opportunities. Opposite party No.4 did not appear despite service and as such, he was proceeded against ex parte. Opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 in their joint reply took preliminary objections to the effect that the complainants have not taken statutory and mandatory Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the C.P. Act to file a joint complaint. In the present complaint the complainants have disputed the legality of amount charged/chargeable by the opposite party- Company under various heads of the cost of the unit such as Maintenance Deposit, Club Membership Charges, Car Parking Charges, Service Tax, VAT etc. and sought the refund thereof with interest despite the fact that the above charges are legally payable by them being integral part of the Buyers Agreement dated 7.1.2015 agreed upon by the complainants and indispensable component of the total cost of the apartment/services provided by the opposite party-Company. The terms and conditions of the Agreement signed between the parties is the essence of the contract between the parties. It is specifically mentioned in the Flat Buyers Agreement dated 7.1.2015 that the apartment allottees agree to pay directly or if paid by the Company, then reimburse to the Company on demand all taxes leviable with reference to said apartment. As such, whenever any demand was/is raised by the concerned authorities for depositing the requisite amount of taxes, the opposite party- Company has been depositing the same within due time. The payments of due taxes towards the subject apartment was integral part of the Agreement and no illegal act has been committed by the opposite party-Company. The complainants being agreeing party to said Buyers Agreement now cannot turn hostile to its terms after the passing of more than 2 years. Therefore, the complainants are estopped from disputing the terms of agreement by virtue of the law of estoppel. The reliefs as sought by the complainants are of civil Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 nature and can be enforced in the Civil Court only and that too within the limitation period provided under relevant law, which has already lapsed keeping in view the date of execution of Flat Buyers Agreement. The complainants cannot be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission in the garb of achieving their ulterior motives. The claim of the complainants is barred by limitation as well. The complainants are not consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act as they made investment for earning premium, which they could not earn because there remained a slump in the Real Estate Market. Now, the complainants have come up with the present complaint to reap profit by exerting pressure on the opposite party-Company. The complainants are not potential users of the flat in question and a person who is not a potential user of services cannot be termed as a consumer. The facts enumerated in the complaint do not constitute it as complaint in the terms of definition of complaint provided in the C.P. Act. The present complaint is barred by limitation. The present complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the same has been filed against the spirit of statutory provisions stipulated in Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC and the same is liable to be dismissed being wholly misconceived. On merits the purchase of the flat in question by the complainants by way of transfer from the earlier allottee Gaurav Sharma after paying the requisite transfer fee, in the manner stated in the complaint and thereafter transfer of the same in their names are admitted. It is also admitted that the possession of the flat in question was delivered to the complainants on 7.1.2015. It is Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 incorrect that the complainants had nothing due towards the opposite party-Company on the alleged date and that they were not provided with the completion certificate, NOC from Forest and Pollution Department and other sanctions and approvals by the opposite party-Company. It is averred that the payment of EDC and other statutory charges leviable are subject to periodical revisions, as decided by the Government Department and the same are legally applicable and payable by the allottee as per their proportionate share of area in the project in accordance with the Government regulations and administrative demands raised by the concerned Department, which was also agreed to by the complainants in the Flat Buyers Agreement dated 7.1.2015. The escalation charges were imposed by virtue of clause 1.2 of the said Buyers Agreement due to inflation in construction material and rise in the price of other construction activities. It is further averred that the opposite party- Company is ready to execute the sale/conveyance deed as and when the complainants fulfil their obligation to pay the dues. The opposite party-Company in its letter dated 14.3.2015 had provided the entire details as to the facts and circumstances giving rise to the demand of VAT from them. They were also supplied with required information as to calculation of said sum of VAT and interest thereon. It is further averred that the opposite party-Company did not charge any sum illegally or under any fictitious head. The complainants were made aware of each and every payable amount at the time of execution of Flat Buyers Agreement by the representative of the opposite party-Company. Now, after the lapse Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 of more than two years of the execution of the said Agreement, the complainants cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of its contents and payment terms. It is further averred that the complainants have been provided with open parking space as per the Punjab Revised Parking norms and that the parking charges are legally and validly imposed as per the Buyers Agreement. The claim of the complainants qua refund of parking charges is barred by limitation in view of the lapse of more than 2 years since the execution of Flat Buyers Agreement. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to any refund under this head as well. It is further averred that the surplus amount after the adjustment of reduction in EDC amount was adjusted towards the pending dues of the complainants towards the opposite party-Company, which was clearly reflected in the Final Accounts of Statement, which depicts the misconceptions of the complainants. The service tax has been charged in consonance with the terms of Flat Buyers Agreement and the complainants are not entitled to dispute the same. The claim is also barred by limitation. The provisions of PAPRA are not applicable to the opposite party-Company; being a Mega Housing Project governed by the Industrial Policy, 2003. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to any refund under this head also. The escalation charges were imposed by virtue of clause 1.2 of the said Buyers Agreement due to inflation in construction material and rise in the price of other construction activities. It is further averred that the opposite party-Company has already developed the club building for the recreational activities of the projects apartment Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 owners. The club is part of the agreement between the parties. The opposite party-Company has already applied for the Occupancy/Completion Certificate regarding the club premises before the concerned authority and is expected to be issued within a short span of time. The complainants are not entitled to claim the refund of the said amount. It is further averred that as per clause 10.1 read with clause 10.2 of the Flat Buyers Agreement for providing and maintaining the essential services in the project comprising the subject apartment belonging to the complainants, a maintenance agency was appointed by the opposite party-Company to look after the maintenance operation of the project. Subsequently, a tripartite maintenance agreement between said maintenance agency, the complainants and opposite party-Company was also executed. As per the Agreement, the complainants were bound to pay the maintenance charges monthly or quarterly whichever is applicable towards the maintenance expenses incurred by the agency. The deposit of maintenance security was also part of the said agreement in order to secure the uninterrupted continuance of essential services being provided by the agency in case of any future default of the payment by the project residents or any apartment owner leaving the project without clearing the payments. The payment of such maintenance charges and deposit are the integral part of the Flat Buyers Agreement and also the Maintenance Agreement qua which the complainants were made fully aware at the time of execution thereof. Such charges are commonly prevalent in every residential society for regular upkeep of the essential Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 maintenance services in the residential complexes and is not an alien concept. Neither any kind of interest ever accrues to the flat owners in respect of such security deposits nor such accrual is part of any agreement. It is further averred that the opposite party- Company used highest quality material in the construction of subject apartment as per the specifications mentioned in the Apartment Buyers Agreement and the brochure. The complainants are flaunting all these baseless allegations just with the intention to make money from the opposite party-Company. There are no such deficiencies as alleged in para no.12 of the complaint or under its sub heads. All such deficiencies enumerated in the complaint are false and the complainants never spent any amount over the repair or repaint in the subject apartment. The complainants were handed over the possession of subject apartment after the complete inspection to their satisfaction. It is further averred that since the inception of the project the opposite party-Company at its own expenses has established a sewage/waste water Treatment Plant, wherein after going through the physical, chemical and biological processes to remove the contaminants from the wastewater, primarily from household sewage, environmentally safer treated waste water is produced and the same is being used by the opposite party-Company for land application at the landscape maintenance of the various parts of project. Therefore, the averments of the complainants qua blockage of sewerage water in the ducts or chambers, overflowing of said water in open areas of project and the same attracting the mosquitoes resultantly causing apprehension of Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 dangerous diseases among the project residents and other health hazards etc. are false and baseless. The photographs enclosed in support of the same are not genuine. It is further averred that the opposite party-Company has carried out excellent plumbing and sanitary work in the construction of said project comprising the subject apartment of the complainants. High quality pipes and skilled workmanship has been provided by the opposite party- Company while affecting the construction work of the said project. There is no leakage of water or the same causing the foul smell etc. It is further averred that the opposite party-Company has fulfilled its obligation qua amenities and services to be provided in the project as per the specifications and commitment made in the Agreement. Round the clock security is also being provided via recruitment of trained security personnels in the project. The parking spaces so alleged have been provided by the opposite party-Company, open and covered both as per the Governments revised parking norms. The opposite party-Company has also provided the club building to the project residents for recreational purposes. So far as the claim of the complainants regarding the damages/cracks appearing on the pillars and beams of the building due to earthquake is concerned, the earthquake resistant RCC structure technique is meant for ensuring that the damage caused to the buildings results in zero loss of human life and that the damages are caused within acceptable range and just at the right places. The brick walls carry the load to the foundation of the building. The structure may have beams and the slab is usually made of concrete which is reinforced with steel or Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 earthquake resistant TMT bars. This helps in making the building more shock absorbent by preventing the destruction of structure with some flexibility and durability to stand without any seismic shock. However, the complainants have misconceived the technique resistance RCC structure. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint and denying any deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice or monopolistic trade practice a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. Defence of Opposite Party No.5:

5. Opposite party No.5 in its separate reply took preliminary objections to the effect that quintessentially it is an inter-se dispute between the complainants and opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 in which opposite party No.5 has no role to play and it has been unnecessarily dragged into this avoidable litigation. Under the Industrial Policy, 2003 of the Government of Punjab there is a provision to give incentives to boost investment in infrastructure and Mega Housing Projects. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority has been notified as a nodal agency for processing the proposal of various Housing and Urban Infrastructure-oriented Mega Projects that are to be considered by the Empowered Committee for consideration of special package of incentives to the projects of special significance. A public grievance redressal committee has been constituted by the Government of Punjab, vide order dated 14.9.2012 to settle disputes of Public/Allottees with the developers/promoters. No amount whatsoever has been charged from the complainants by opposite party No.5 and there is no Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 consumer dispute involved qua them and no service as defined under the C.P. Act has been provided to them by it. The GMADA is a body corporate and can sue and be sued in its name and the present impleadment of opposite party No.5 is improper. On merits also similar averments have been made and all other averments have been denied. The complaint is liable to be dismissed; being vexatious and devoid of any merits qua it. Evidence of the Parties:

6. In order to prove their case, the complainants tendered in evidence their own affidavits as Ex.C-A and Ex.C-B along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8, Photographs Ex.C-9, Ex.C-9A to Ex.C9D, Ex.C-10, Ex.C-10A to Ex.C-10F, copy of letter dated 1.11.2016 as Ex.C-11, photographs Ex.C-11A to Ex.C-11K, photographs Ex.C12, Ex.C-12A to Ex.C-12E, photograph Ex.C-13, Ex.C-13A to Ex.C-13E, copy of letter dated 18.6.2009 as Ex.C-14, copy of letter dated 5.10.2016 as Ex.C-15, copy of order dated 20.12.2016 as Ex.C-16 and copy of bill dated 10.6.2016 as Ex.C-17. On the other hand, opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of their DGM (Marketing) Jatin Jain as Ex.OP-A along with documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4, whereas Opposite party No.5 tendered in evidence affidavit of its Senior Town Planner (Licensing) as Ex.OP5/A.

7. I have carefully gone through the averments of the parties and the evidence produced by them in support of those averments. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by the Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 complainants and have heard learned counsel on behalf of both the sides. Contentions of the parties:

8. It was argued by the learned counsel for the complainants that the complainants purchased 2 BHK Flat No.B-0702, 7th Floor, Tower-B, Wellington Heights in TDI City, Sector 117-119, Mohali, vide allotment letter dated 7.1.2015, Ex.C-2, for a total basic price of `20,84,863/-. Thereafter the Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 7.1.2015, Ex.C-3, was executed between the parties in respect of the flat/apartment in question and after payment of the basic sale price plus the other charges i.e. `24,56,527/-, as per Annexure-II of Apartment Buyers Agreement the physical possession of the Flat was handed over to them on the same day i.e. 7.1.2015, vide letter Ex.C-4. It was further argued that after the complainants and their family started living in the flat/apartment in question, they found many deficiencies and defects in the construction of the flat in question contrary to the specifications made by the opposite party- Company at the time of purchase, as mentioned in the complaint itself, which remained unsolved despite numerous verbal as well as written complaints. However, the complainants requested the opposite party-Company to execute conveyance deed of the flat in their favour as per clause 10 of the Apartment Buyers Agreement, Ex.C-3, but the opposite party-Company directed them to deposit VAT charges of `1,16,597.42P, vide letter dated 13.3.2015, Ex.C-5 and also demanded VAT interest of `10,935/-, vide Final Statement of Account, Ex.C-7 before execution of conveyance deed. It was Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 further argued that the complainants paid `24,56,527/- as the total cost of the flat as per Apartment Buyers Agreement, Ex.C-3, meaning thereby that the total cost of the flat so fixed was inclusive of all taxes and/or charges accrued before handing over the possession thereof and/or execution of the said Agreement. Therefore, the impugned demand of VAT/Service Tax and/or other charges in respect of the Flat in question by the opposite party- Company from the complainants is illegal by virtue of law of estoppel. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the complainants that the opposite party-Company has charged an extra amount of `1,00,000/- for car parking space i.e. `50,000/- for stilt car parking and `50,000/- for open car parking. Actually no parking space either stilt or open has been provided by the opposite party- Company to the complainants. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to the refund of `1,00,000/- charged on account of parking space. The complainants are also entitled to the refund of reduced EDC at the rate of `80/- per square feet i.e. amounting to `95,308/- illegally retained by the opposite party-Company. It was further argued that there was no Club House/building in the Group Housing Society of Wellington Height-1 and, as such, the complainants are entitled to the refund of `50,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Club Membership charges. It was further argued that as per Item I of the Final Statement of Account, Ex.C-7, the opposite party-Company charged a sum of `2,07,294.90P on account of escalation charges without giving any details and Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 reasons. However, the opposite party-Company has not charged these charges from other flat buyers and as such, the action of the opposite party-Company is arbitrary and discriminatory. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to the refund of `2,07,294.90P shown in Item I of the Final Statement of Account on account of escalation charges. It was further argued that besides the above there are a number of deficiencies and defects in the construction of the flat in question, which have already been pointed out in para no.12 of the complaint for which the complainants are entitled to be suitably compensated as prayed in the complaint. This act and conduct of the opposite party-Company not only amounts to deficiency in service but also adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party-Company due to which the complainants have suffered mental harassment and agony for which they are also entitled to compensation and litigation costs. In the last he prayed that this complaint be allowed and all the reliefs claimed in the complaint be granted to the complainants.

9. Per contra it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party-Company that VAT, Service Tax, Car Parking Charges, External Development Charges, Club Membership Fee etc. have rightly been charged by the opposite party-Company as the same are legally payable by the complainants being integral part of the Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 7.1.2015, Ex.C-3, agreed upon by the complainants and indispensable component of the total cost of the apartment/services provided by the opposite party- Company. The complainants being agreeing party to said Buyers Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 Agreement now cannot turn hostile to its terms after the passing of more than two years. It was further argued that the reliefs claimed in the complaint are of civil nature and can be enforced in the civil courts only and that too within the limitation period provided under the relevant law. It was further argued that the deficiencies/defects in para no.12 of the complaint have not been proved by the complainants by producing any cogent evidence and, as such, the same are not made out. The opposite party-Company is ready to execute the sale/conveyance deed in respect of the said flat/apartment subject to clearance of pending dues by the complainants as per the terms and conditions of the Buyers Agreement. It was further argued that the surplus amount after the adjustment of reduction in EDC amount had already been adjusted towards the pending dues of the complainants and the same have been reflected in the Final Account Statement, Ex.C-7. The escalation charges have been imposed as per clause 1.2 of the Buyers Agreement due to inflation in construction material and rise in the price of other construction activities. The opposite party- Company has already developed the club building for the recreational activities of the projects apartment owners. The club is part of the agreement between the parties. As such, the opposite party-Company is entitled to the club membership charges also. It was further argued that the opposite party-Company has used best quality material in the construction of the flats/apartments in question and the complainants are flaunting all these baseless allegations just to make money from the opposite party-Company. The Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 complainants were handed over the possession of subject apartment after their complete inspection and satisfaction. It was further argued that since the inception of project, the opposite party- Company at its own expenses has established Sewerage/Waste Water Treatment Plant, wherein after going through the physical, chemical and biological processes to remove the contaminants from the wastewater, primarily from household sewage, environmentally safer treated waste water is produced and the same is being used by the opposite party-Company for land application at the landscape maintenance of the various part of the project. Hence the allegations of the complainants qua blockage of sewerage water in the ducts or chambers, overflowing of said water in open areas of project and the same attracting the mosquitoes causing apprehension of dangerous diseases among the project residents and other health hazards etc. are false and baseless. He further argued that the photographs appended by the complainants are not genuine. The opposite party- Company has carried excellent plumbing and sanitary work in the construction of said project comprising the subject apartment of the complainants. High quality pipes and skilled workmanship were provided by the opposite party-Company while affecting the construction work of the said project. There is no leakage of water or the same causing foul smell etc. as alleged by the complainants. The opposite party-Company has fulfilled its obligations qua amenities and services to be provided in the said project as per the specifications and commitments made in the Agreement. The earthquake resistant RCC structure technique is meant for ensuring Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 that the damage caused to the buildings results in zero loss of human life and that the damages are caused within acceptable range and just at the right places. The brick walls are thick in load bearing structures. These walls carry the load to the foundation of the building. The structure may have beams and the slab is usually made of concrete which is reinforced with steel or earthquake- resistant TMT bars. This helps in making the building more shock absorbent by preventing the destruction of structure with some flexibility and durable to stand without any seismic shock. However, that does not really mean that even a crack would not appear on the walls/beams on occurrence of earthquake. However, the complainants have misconceived the technique of earthquake resistance RCC structure. The complainants were provided with sufficient and appropriate car parking space as per the revised parking norms issued by the Government of Punjab. It was prayed that there is no deficiency in service or adoption of any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party-Company and as such, the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs; being meritless.

10. It was argued by the learned counsel for opposite party No.3 that as per the Agreement, the complainants are bound to pay the maintenance charges monthly or quarterly, whichever is applicable towards the maintenance expenses incurred by the agency i.e. opposite party No.3 and the deposit of maintenance security was also part of the said agreement in order to secure uninterrupted continuance of essential services being provided by the agency in case of any future default of the payment by the project residents or Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 any apartment owner leaving the project without clearing the payments. The payment of such maintenance charges and deposit are the integral part of such maintenance charges and also the Maintenance Agreement qua which the complainants were made fully aware at the time of execution thereof. Such charges are commonly prevalent in every residential society for regular upkeep of the essential maintenance services in the residential complexes and are not an alien concept. Neither any kind of interest ever accrues to the flat owners in respect of such security deposits nor such accrual is part of any agreement. He prayed that the complainants are not entitled to the refund of the security deposit and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua opposite party No.3.

11. It was argued by the learned counsel for opposite party No.5 that it is an inter-se dispute between the complainants and opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 in which opposite party No.5 has no role to play and it has been unnecessarily dragged into this avoidable litigation. It was further argued that no amount, whatsoever, has been charged from the complainants by opposite party No.5 and there is no consumer dispute involved qua them and no service as defined under the C.P. Act has been provided to them by it. The GMADA is a body corporate and can sue and can be sued in its name and the present impleadment of opposite party No.5 is improper. Accordingly it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed qua opposite party No.5. Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 Consideration of Contentions:

12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

13. Admittedly the flat/apartment in question was allotted to the complainants by the opposite party-Company, vide allotment letter dated 7.1.2015, Ex.C-2, for the basic sale price of `20,84,863/-, in respect of which Apartment Buyers Agreement was also executed on the same date i.e. 7.1.2015, Ex.C-3. The Schedule of Payment has been given in Annexure-II of that Agreement. The complainants paid the total cost of the flat including certain charges as per Annexure-II to the tune of `24,56,527/- and thereafter the opposite party-Company delivered possession of the flat/apartment in question to them on the same very day i.e. 7.1.2015, vide letter Ex.C-4. When the complainants requested the opposite party- Company to execute conveyance deed of the flat in their favour as per clause 10 of the Apartment Buyers Agreement, Ex.C-3, the opposite party-Company directed them to deposit VAT charges of `1,16,597.42P, vide letter dated 13.3.2015, Ex.C-5 and also demanded VAT interest of `10,935/-, vide Final Statement of Account, Ex.C-7 before execution of conveyance deed. The first question to be decided by this Commission in the present complaint is as to whether the complainants are liable to pay VAT as asked for by the opposite party-Company, vide impugned demand dated 13.3.2015, Ex.C-5?

14. Admittedly the Final Statement of Account dated 10.9.2016 in respect of the flat/apartment in question has been issued by the Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 opposite party-Company to the complainants and a copy of the same is annexed on the record of the case as Ex.C-7 mentioning therein the details of the amounts due and the details of the amounts received by the opposite party-Company and the details of the balance payable under different heads. So far as the demand of VAT by the opposite party-Company from the complainants is concerned, I am of the view that the same is not payable by the complainants as the complainants have not purchased any material from the opposite party-Company. They have purchased a built-up apartment from the opposite party-Company in its Group Housing Complex under the name and style of WELLINGTON HEIGHTS in TDI City, Sector 117, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The definition of apartment is given in section 2(c) of the punjab apartment & property regulation act, 1995 (in short, papra) and the same is reproduced hereunder for the facility of reference:- (c) apartment whether called block, chamber, dwelling unit, flat, lot, premises, suite, tenement, unit or by any other name, means a separate and self-contained part of any property, including one or more rooms or enclosed spaces, located on one or more floors, or, any part or parts thereof, in a building, or in a plot of land, used or intended to be used for residence, office, shop, showroom, or godown or for carrying on any business, industry, occupation, profession or trade, or for any other type of independent use ancillary to the purpose specified above and with a direct exit to a public street, road or highway or to a common area leading to such street, road or Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 highway, and includes any garage or room whether or not adjacent to the building in which such apartment is located, provided by the promoter for the use by the allottee for parking any vehicle or, as the case may be, for the residence of any domestic servant employed in such apartment; Explanation. - (1) If a basement, cellar, garage, room, shop or storage space is sold separately from any apartment, it shall be treated as an independent apartment and not as part of any other apartment or of the common areas and facilities: Explanation. - (2) Notwithstanding that provision is made for sanitary, washing, bathing or other conveniences as common to two or more apartments, the apartments shall be deemed to be separate and self-contained. A perusal of the above reproduced definition of apartment provides that the apartment means a separate and self-contained part of any property, including one or more rooms or enclosed spaces, located on one or more floors, or any part or parts thereof in a building or in a plot of land, used for intended to be used for residence, office shop, showroom, or godown or for carrying on any business, industry, occupation, profession or trade or for any other type of independent use ancillary to the purpose specified above and with a direct exist to a public street, road or highway or to a common area leading to such street, road or highway, and includes any garage or room whether or not adjacent to the building in which such apartment is located, provided by the promoter for the use by the allottee for parking any vehicle or, as the case may be, for the Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 residence of any domestic servant employed in such apartment. Thus, the opposite party-Company sold the built-up flat/apartment to the complainants for their personal use and residence. The complainants have not purchased any material from the opposite party-Company for which they are liable to pay VAT. The opposite party-Company must have purchased different building materials from different persons for the construction of the Housing Project and, as such, opposite party-Company might be liable to pay VAT on those materials but so far as the complainants buying the flat/apartment in question from the opposite party-Company is concerned, they are not liable to pay any VAT to it.

15. So far as the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. passed by Honble Apex Court on 26.9.2013 in Civil Appeal No.8672 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (C) No.17741 of 2007) is concerned, the Honble Apex Court has observed that for sustaining the levy of tax on the goods deemed to have been sold in execution of a works contract, in our opinion, three conditions must be fulfilled (i) there must be a works contract, (ii) the goods should have been involved in the execution of a works contract, and (iii) the property in those goods must be transferred to a third party either as goods or in some other form. However, in the case in hand, there is no works contract involved because the complainants have only purchased the built- up/constructed flat/apartment as defined in the PAPRA. As such, when there is no element of works contract, there is no question of purchase of any material by the complainants. VAT is leviable only Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 on the building materials used in the construction of the flat/apartment. Therefore, the complainants are not liable to pay any VAT to the opposite parties-Company. Moreover, there is no clause in the Apartment Buyers Agreement with regard to payment of VAT by the complainants to the opposite parties-Company. Only mentioning of all taxes covered will not cover the same unless specifically mentioning the same. Otherwise also no material has been produced on record, through which the VAT has been made leviable by the Government on the purchase of the flat/apartment by the complainants from the opposite parties-Company. Therefore, it is held that the demand of `1,16,597.12P as VAT and `10,935/- as VAT interest in the demand letter dated 13.3.2015, Ex.C-5, are not payable by the complainants. This demand is hereby quashed.

16. So far as the payment of service tax is concerned, the matter is no more res integra. In the judgment dated 8.3.2016 of Honble National Commission in Revision Petition No.296 of 2016 (M/S MORE BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS & 3 ORS. v. MANOHAR GOPALRAO GHATWAI & 2 ORS.) the facts were that the complainants/respondents paid service tax to the petitioner from whom they had agreed to purchase residential flats in a complex which the petitioner was to construct. The aforesaid service tax was collected from them at the stage of the execution of the sale deed in the year 2006. Alleging that the aforesaid collection of service tax was without authority of law, they demanded the refund of the said amount. The petitioner, however, claimed that it had already deposited the said amount with the Government and also sent a Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 copy of the challan, whereby the said amount was deposited by it, to the complainants/respondents. The complainants/respondents tried to obtain refund from the Government but were told that the tax could only be refunded to the person who had deposited the same. Alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner in rendering service to them, the respondents/complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking refund of the amount which had been collected from them towards payment of service tax along with interest, compensation etc. The petitioner contested the complaint on the ground that they had collected the service tax because of some ambiguity in the circulars issued by the Government and had deposited the said tax with the Government. It was further stated in the reply that though the petitioner had already applied for refund of the said amount, the refund had not been made. The District Forum, vide its order dated 8.3.2010, directed the petitioner to refund the amount collected from the complainant towards service tax along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing the order until the date of payment. A sum of `2,000/- was awarded to the complainant as cost of litigation. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the concerned State Commission, which was dismissed, vide order dated 15.9.2015. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the revision petition before the Honble National Commission was that since the service tax was collected bonafidely and deposited with the Government, there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner in rendering services to the respondents and Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 consequently, the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Honble National Commission has held in para 5 as under:- We, however, are not inclined to accept the said contention. In our opinion, once it was clarified that service tax was not payable on the transaction between the petitioner and the complainants and pursuant to the said clarification the complainants applied to the petitioner for refund of the amount collected from them towards payment of service tax, the petitioner ought to have made payment to them though it could have sought refund of the said amount from the Government with appropriate interest. The petitioner having not refunded the said amount despite clarification given by the Government and demand made by the complainants, it was deficient in rendering services to the complainants as far as refund of the amount collected from them towards payment of service tax was concerned. In this view of the matter, it is held that the complainants are entitled to the refund of the amount of `73,800/- collected from the complainant on account of service tax. However, the opposite party- Company is at liberty to claim the refund of the same from the Government in accordance with law if so advised. Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017

17. So far as the refund of the car parking space charges is concerned, one open/stilt car parking space bearing No.30 was allotted to the complainants at the time of delivery of possession of the flat in question, vide possession letter dated 7.1.2015, Ex.C-4. This fact has also been admitted by the complainants in their complaint. However, it is now settled that stilt parking cannot be sold by the promoter to the purchaser of the flat/apartment. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Nihalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. AIR 2010 (SUPREME COURT) 3607. No other car parking has been provided to the complainants. Therefore, the complainants are held entitled to the refund of the amount of `1,00,000/- deposited by them with the opposite party-Company on account of car parking space charges.

18. So far as the External Development Charges are concerned, admittedly the complainants have paid these charges at the rate of `120/- per square foot, which were later on reduced to `40/- per square foot. The reduction of the rate of External Development Charges has duly been admitted by the opposite party-Company in its written version. Therefore, the complainants are held entitled to the refund of `95,308/- as excess EDC charges retained by opposite party-Company.

19. So far as the refund of Club Membership Charges are concerned, the complainants alleged in the complaint that the club building is not complete. On the other hand, the opposite party- Company alleged that the club building is complete and has duly Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 been developed by opposite party-Company. However, the fact remains that no completion or partial completion certificate in respect of the club building has been produced on record and in the absence of the same it cannot be held that the club building is complete and has been fully developed. Honble National Commission in a latest judgment in Alop Kumar Mittal v. Neelkanth Town Planner Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2017(4) CPR 698 (NC) while dealing with the issue of Club Membership Charges has held in para no.9 as under:-

9. As far as club membership charges are concerned, the same are payable in terms of clause 1.12 of the Buyers Agreement but the said charges, in my view, can be recovered only when the club is fully functional. I, therefore hold that the said charges will not be payable immediately but would be payable on demand when the club becomes fully functional. It is, therefore, held that without providing the club facilities the opposite party-Company cannot charge for the same. Hence, the complainants are entitled to the refund of `50,000/- charged by the opposite party-Company on account of Club Membership Charges. However, in case the opposite party-Company provides the facilities in Group Housing Society of Wellington Height-1, it is at liberty to charge Club Membership Charges from the complainants.

20. So far as refund of `2,07,294/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of escalation charges is concerned, the matter is no more res integra. Honble Supreme Court in CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR , HUDA & ANR. v. SHAKUNTLA DEVI I(2017) Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 CPJ 3 (SC) while dealing with the similar point has observed in para no.15 as under:-

15. The point that falls for our consideration in this case is whether the State Commission was justified in awarding Rs.15 lakhs towards the escalation in the cost of construction as compensation. We are of the view that the Respondent is not entitled to such compensation awarded by the State Commission and confirmed by the National Commission. The Respondent suffered an injury due to the delay in handing over the possession as there was definitely escalation in the cost of construction. At the same time the Respondent has surely benefited by the increase in the cost of plot between 1989 to 2000. In our opinion, the order of the State Commission is vitiated for non application of mind to a vital and relevant factor and hence, suffers from the vice of unreasonableness. The State Commission criticized the conduct of the Respondent in intentionally delaying the construction for 6 years but still proceeded to award compensation. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that award of interest would have been sufficient to compensate the Respondent for the loss suffered by him due to the delay in handing over the possession of the plot. The compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs awarded by the State Commission is excessive. Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 As we have not reversed the impugned order on any other ground, it is not necessary for us to delve into other points that were urged by the Respondent. Therefore, it is held that opposite party-Company has rightly charged the above said amount on account of escalation charges. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to the refund of the amount charged by the opposite party-Company on account of escalation charges.

21. So far as the refund of `25,000/- towards Maintenance Security deposit taken by opposite party No.3 along with interest is concerned, the complainants are not entitled to the refund of the same. As per clause 10.1 read with clause 10.2 of the Apartment Buyers Agreement, Ex.C-3, the complainants themselves have agreed and undertook to pay the maintenance bills on or before due date as intimated by the maintenance agency. Admittedly the complainants are living in the flat/apartment in question and as such, they are legally bound to pay the maintenance charges on monthly/quarterly basis as may be directed by maintenance agency

i.e. opposite party No.3 in this case. Subsequently a tripartite maintenance agreement between said maintenance agency, the complainants and the opposite party-Company was executed and as per the same, the complainants were bound to pay the maintenance charges as also the deposit of maintenance security in order to secure uninterrupted continuance of essential services. Therefore it Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 is held that the complainants are not entitled to the refund of `25,000/- deposited by them as maintenance security.

22. So far as the refund of `1,50,000/- on account of the amount incurred by the complainants on replacement of electric items, sliding glass doors and repairs of walls is concerned, there is no evidence produced on record by the complainants that they actually got replaced those items. Similarly there is no evidence on record to prove that the opposite party-Company used sub-standard electric items, sliding doors, pipes, CP fitting, tiles, sink and steel metal mesh in the kitchen. Therefore, it is held that the complainants are not entitled to any amount on these two accounts.

23. So far as use of sub-standard pipes in ducts and deficiency in sewerage connection are concerned, the same have also not been proved by the complainants by producing cogent evidence on record. As such, it is held that the complainants are not entitled to any amount on these accounts also. Similarly they are also not entitled to any amount on account of risk of life of the complainants and their family members as well as of goods as there is no evidence on the record to prove the same.

24. In view of my above discussion, this complaint is partly allowed against opposite parties Nos.1 and 2-Company and is dismissed against other opposite parties as no relief has been claimed in the complaint against them. The following directions are issued to opposite party Nos.1 and 2-Company:- Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017

i) to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainants without demanding VAT charges; ii) to refund `73,800/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Service Tax along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; iii) to refund `1,00,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of car parking space charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; iv) to refund `95,308/- retained by the opposite party- Company on account of excess External Development Charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment;

v) to refund `50,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Club Membership Charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; and vi) to pay `50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental harassment and agony etc. including costs of litigation.

25. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party-Company within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2017:

26. In this case, the complainants purchased 3 BHK Flat/Apartment No.2 on 3rd floor in Tower-G, having super area approximately 1744.20 square feet at the basic rate of `1,400/- per square foot for total basic sale price of `24,41,880/-, vide allotment letter dated 18.5.2010. Thereafter Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 30.9.2011 was executed between the parties in respect of the Flat/Apartment in question. The complainants made payment of `36,20,672/- to the opposite party-Company on account of basic sale price of the flat/apartment in question including certain charges on various dates upto 5.4.2014. Thereafter the opposite party- Company issued possession letter dated 31.5.2014 of the flat/apartment in question and one stilt/open car parking space No.6/85 has been allotted to them. However, Completion Certificate, N.O.C. from Forest Department and Pollution Department and certificates with regard to laying of road, water, sewerage connections etc. have not been provided to the complainants. Since the complainants had made the full payment of the total price of the Apartment to the opposite party-Company, therefore, they had been requesting them to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed regarding the flat in question. However, the opposite party-Company had been delaying the same on one pretext or the other and finally on 4.10.2016, it raised an additional demand to pay VAT charges and VAT interest of `1,89,071/- (`1,70,705/- + `18,366/-). Rest of the averments are almost same as have been made by the complainants in CC No.4 of 2017. Similar reliefs have been claimed Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 in this Consumer Complaint as have been claimed in CC No.4 of 2017. The opposite party-Company took similar pleas in their written version as have been taken by them in CC No.4 of 2017. Opposite party No.5 also took the same pleas in its reply as have been taken by it in CC No.4 of 2017. Written submissions have been submitted by the complainants. Learned counsel for the parties also raised similar arguments as have been raised by them in CC No.4 of 2017.

27. In view of my above discussion in CC No.4 of 2017, this complaint is also partly allowed in the same terms against opposite party Nos.1 and 2-Company and is dismissed against opposite parties Nos.3 to 5. The following directions are issued to opposite parties Nos.1 and 2-Company:-

i) to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainants without demanding VAT charges; ii) to refund `92,642/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Service Tax along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; iii) to refund `1,50,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of car parking space charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; iv) to refund `1,39,536/- retained by the opposite party- Company on account of excess External Development Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 Charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment;

v) to refund `50,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Club Membership Charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; and vi) to pay `50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental harassment and agony etc. including costs of litigation.

28. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party-Company within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Consumer Complaint No.131 of 2017:

29. In this case, the complainant purchased 2 BHK Flat/Apartment No.H-0201 (02 Floor, H Tower) having super area approximately 1665.78 square feet at the basic rate of `1,725/- per square foot for total basic sale price of `28,73,471/-, on 26.8.2014 by way of transfer from one Bikramjit Singh after paying the requisite transfer fee to the opposite party-Company and after the transfer of the flat/apartment in question in the name of the complainant the opposite parties issued allotment letter dated 25.11.2010. Thereafter endorsement of transfer was made in the Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 29.8.2013 executed between Bikramjit Singh, original allottee and the opposite parties-Company in respect of the Flat/Apartment in question. Since the full payment of the total price with all other charges in respect of the Flat/Apartment in Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 question as per the Agreement had already been received by the opposite party-Company from the complainant/previous allottee and nothing was due, therefore, the opposite party-Company issued Final Statement of Accounts dated 7.10.2014 to her mentioning the details of all payments. This Final Statement of Accounts clearly depicts that nothing was due to be paid by the complainant as on 7.10.2014 in respect of the flat/apartment in question. Therefore, the opposite party-Company issued possession letter dated 7.10.2014 and vide this letter one open/stilt car parking space number 46/2 was also allotted to the complainant. However, Completion Certificate, N.O.C. from Forest Department and Pollution Department and certificates with regard to laying of road, water, sewerage connections etc. have not been provided to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party-Company for execution of the sale deed/conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question, however, they asked the complainant to pay VAT charges of `1,63,030/- before execution of the sale deed/conveyance deed. Thus, under the above said compelling circumstances the complainant made the payment of `1,63,030/- to the opposite party-Company, vide receipt dated 16.2.2015. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are almost same as have been made by the complainants in CC No.4 of 2017. Similar reliefs have been claimed in this Consumer Complaint as have been claimed in CC No.4 of 2017 and instead of directing the opposite party- Company to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed in favour of the complainant, it has been prayed that the opposite party-Company Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 may be directed to refund the amount of `1,63,030/- on account of VAT charges to the complainant. The opposite party-Company took similar pleas in their written version as have been taken by them in CC No.4 of 2017. Opposite party No.5 also took the same pleas in its reply as have been taken by it in CC No.4 of 2017. Written submissions have been submitted by the complainant. Learned counsel for the parties also raised similar arguments as have been raised by them in CC No.4 of 2017.

30. In view of my above discussion in CC No.4 of 2017, this complaint is also partly allowed in the same terms against opposite party Nos.1 & 2-Company and is dismissed against opposite parties Nos.3 to 5. The following directions are issued to opposite parties Nos.1 and 2-Company:-

i) to refund `1,63,030/- charged as VAT charges from the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; ii) to refund `1,46,661/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Service Tax along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; iii) to refund `1,50,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of car parking space charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 iv) to refund `1,33,262/- retained by the opposite party- Company on account of excess External Development Charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment;

v) to refund `50,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Club Membership Charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; and vi) to pay `50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental harassment and agony etc. including costs of litigation.

31. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party-Company within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Consumer Complaint No.132 of 2017:

32. In this case, the complainants purchased 2 BHK Flat/Apartment No.B-0802 on 8th floor in Tower-B, having super area of approximately 1191.35 square feet at the basic rate of `1,750/- per square foot for total basic sale price of `20,84,862/- on 4.9.2013 by way of transfer from the earlier allottee Mrs. Krishna Rani after paying the requisite transfer fee to the opposite parties-Company and after making upto date payments to said allottee. Thereafter the opposite parties-Company issued allotment letter with transfer date 4.9.2013 in the names of the complainants in respect of the flat in question containing description of the flat in question and copy of Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 30.6.2011 executed between Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 the opposite party-Company and Mrs. Krishna Rani after making endorsement of transfer in the names of complainants was also given to them on 4.9.2013. Thereafter the opposite party-Company issued possession letter dated 1.5.2014 of the flat/apartment in question and one stilt/open car parking space No.31 has been allotted to them. However, Completion Certificate, N.O.C. from Forest Department and Pollution Department and certificates with regard to laying of road, water, sewerage connections etc. have not been provided to the complainants. Since the complainants had made the full payment of the total price of the Apartment to the opposite party-Company, therefore, they had been requesting them to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed regarding the flat in question. However, the opposite party-Company had been delaying the same on one pretext or the other and finally on 17.9.2016, it raised an additional demand to pay VAT charges and VAT interest of `1,28,002/-. Rest of the averments are almost same as have been made by the complainants in CC No.4 of 2017. Similar reliefs have been claimed in this Consumer Complaint as have been claimed in CC No.4 of 2017. The opposite party-Company took similar pleas in their written version as have been taken by them in CC No.4 of 2017. Opposite party No.4 also took the same pleas in its reply as have been taken by it in CC No.4 of 2017. Written submissions have been submitted by the complainants. Learned counsel for the parties also raised similar arguments as have been raised by them in CC No.4 of 2017. Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017

33. In view of my above discussion in CC No.4 of 2017, this complaint is also partly allowed in the same terms against opposite party-Company and is dismissed against opposite parties Nos.3 and

4. The following directions are issued to opposite parties Nos.1 and 2-Company:-

i) to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainants without demanding VAT charges; ii) to refund `79,212/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Service Tax along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; iii) to refund `50,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of car parking space charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; iv) to refund `95,308/- retained by the opposite party- Company on account of excess External Development Charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment;

v) to pay `50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental harassment and agony etc. including costs of litigation. Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017

34. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party-Company within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Consumer Complaint No.133 of 2017:

35. In this case, the complainants purchased 2 BHK Flat/Apartment No.E-0602 on 6th floor in Tower-E, having super area of approximately 1191.35 square feet at the basic rate of `1,750/- per square foot for total basic sale price of `20,84,863/- in the above said project of the opposite party-Company, vide allotment letter dated 27.8.2010. Thereafter Apartment Buyers Agreement in respect of the flat/apartment in question was executed between the parties on 9.9.2010. The complainant paid the full price of the flat/apartment in question after availing home loan from LIC Home Finance Ltd. (LIC HFL) and thereafter the opposite party-Company issued possession letter dated 19.12.2013 and also allotted one Open car parking space number F-39. However, Completion Certificate, N.O.C. from Forest Department and Pollution Department and certificates with regard to laying of road, water, sewerage connections etc. have not been provided to the complainants. Since the complainants had made the full payment of the total price of the Apartment to the opposite party-Company, therefore, they had been requesting them to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed regarding the flat in question. However, the opposite party-Company had been delaying the same on one pretext or the other and finally, it raised an additional demand to pay VAT charges and VAT interest of `1,16,597/-. Rest of the averments are Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 almost same as have been made by the complainants in CC No.4 of 2017. Similar reliefs have been claimed in this Consumer Complaint as have been claimed in CC No.4 of 2017. The opposite party- Company took similar pleas in their written version as have been taken by them in CC No.4 of 2017. Opposite party No.3 also took the same pleas in its reply as have been taken by it in CC No.4 of 2017. Written submissions have been submitted by the complainants. Learned counsel for the parties also raised similar arguments as have been raised by them in CC No.4 of 2017.

36. In view of my above discussion in CC No.4 of 2017, this complaint is also partly allowed in the same terms against opposite parties Nos.1 and 2-Company and is dismissed against opposite party No.3. The following directions are issued to opposite parties Nos.1 and 2-Company:-

i) to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainants without demanding VAT charges; ii) to refund `71,453/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Service Tax along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; iii) to refund `50,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of car parking space charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 iv) to refund `95,308/- retained by the opposite party- Company on account of excess External Development Charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment;

v) to refund `50,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Club Membership Charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; and vi) to pay `50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental harassment and agony etc. including costs of litigation.

37. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party-Company within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2017:

38. In this case, the complainants purchased 3 BHK Flat/Apartment No.E-0603 on 6th floor in Tower-G, having super area of approximately 1963.92 square feet at the basic rate of `2,150/- per square foot for total basic sale price of `42,22,428/- in the above said project of the opposite party-Company for which, Apartment Buyers Agreement was executed between the parties on 18.4.2011. The complainants paid the full price of the flat/apartment in question after availing loan from Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited and thereafter the opposite party-Company issued possession letter dated 8.2.2014. However, when the complainants visited the flat for Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 taking physical possession on 23.2.2014, it was found that the flat was not ready for taking possession because of many defects such as there was heavy seepage in walls of the flat. They immediately made one representation dated 23.2.2014 to the opposite party- Company regarding the defects and deficiencies in the flat and requested the opposite party-Company to remove the defects mentioned therein and also to refund the interest amount paid by the complainants to the bank accrued on the loan amount between the period from the date of making the full payment of the total price of the flat on 18.6.2013 till the date of taking physical possession of the flat. In response to the above said representation dated 23.2.2014, the opposite party-Company, vide its letter dated 7.5.2014 i.e. after the gap of 3 months intimated that the issues raised by the complainants with regard to defects in flat have been resolved and the complainants were requested to take possession within 7 days. The complainants also paid all the pending amounts towards them as per Final Statement of Accounts dated 27.5.2013. However, possession letter dated 21.5.2014 was issued by the opposite party- Company after gap of approximately 10 months after the date of full payment made by the complainants. Completion Certificate, N.O.C. from Forest Department and Pollution Department and certificates with regard to laying of road, water, sewerage connections etc. have not been provided to the complainants. Since the complainants had made the full payment of the total price of the Apartment to the opposite party-Company, therefore, they had been requesting them to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed regarding the flat in Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 question. However, the opposite party-Company had been delaying the same on one pretext or the other and finally, it raised an additional demand to pay VAT charges and VAT interest of `1,92,208/-. Rest of the averments are almost same as have been made by the complainants in CC No.4 of 2017. Similar reliefs have been claimed in this Consumer Complaint as have been claimed in CC No.4 of 2017 and in addition to those reliefs, it has also been claimed that the opposite party-Company be directed to refund `3,26,816/- along with interest @ 21% per annum which was paid by them to their Bank as interest, whereas opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay on account of delayed possession as per terms and conditions of the Buyers Agreement. The opposite party-Company took similar pleas in their written version as have been taken by them in CC No.4 of 2017. Opposite party No.3 also took the same pleas in its reply as have been taken by it in CC No.4 of 2017. Written submissions have been submitted by the complainants. Learned counsel for the parties also raised similar arguments as have been raised by them in CC No.4 of 2017.

39. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the complainants that the complainants paid the total price of the flat on 18.6.2013 to the opposite party-Company and the possession of the flat was delivered to them on 7.5.2014 i.e. after about 10 months of the receipt of the full amount. The complainants have obtained home loan from Dewan Housing Finance Limited and are paying interest. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to the refund of the Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 interest paid by them to the DHFL for the above mentioned period on account of delayed possession of the flat.

40. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel for opposite party-Company that the complainants are not entitled to any amount on this account as the possession of the flat was delivered as per Schedule for Possession mentioned in the Buyer Agreement executed between the parties. There is no delay in delivery of the possession.

41. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above mentioned contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the sides.

42. As per clause 6.1 of the Buyers Agreement, Ex.C-2, it is clearly mentioned that the Company based on its present plans and estimates and subject to force majeure and all just exceptions, contemplates to complete construction of the said Building/said Apartment within a period of 4 years from the date of execution of this Agreement unless there shall be delay or there shall be failure due to reasons mentioned in this Agreement or due to failure of Apartment Allottee (s) to pay in time the price of the said Apartment along with other charges and dues in accordance with the schedule of payments given in Annexure-II or as per the demands raised by the Company from time to time or any failure on the part of the Apartment Allottee(s) to abide by all or any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement. The Buyers Agreement was executed on 18.4.2011 and, as such, as per clause 6.1 thereof, the flat in question was to be constructed and possession was to be delivered Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 within four years from the date of execution of the said Agreement

i.e. by 17.4.2015. Admittedly the possession was delivered to the complainants on 7.5.2014 i.e. within four years from the date of execution of the Buyers Agreement. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to any interest paid by them to the DHFL for obtaining the home loan from it.

43. In view of my above discussion in CC No.4 of 2017 and the above discussion in CC No.758 of 2017, this complaint is also partly allowed in the same terms against opposite parties No.1 and 2- Company and is dismissed against opposite party No.3. The following directions are issued to opposite parties Nos.1 and 2- Company:-

i) to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainants without demanding VAT charges; ii) to refund `1,66,276/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Service Tax along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; iii) to refund `1,50,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of car parking space charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; iv) to refund `50,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Club Membership Charges Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; and

v) to pay `50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental harassment and agony etc. including costs of litigation.

44. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party-Company within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Consumer Complaint No.759 of 2017:

45. In this case, the complainants purchased 2 BHK Flat/Apartment No.C-0101 (01 Floor, C Tower) having super area of approximately 1228.66 square feet at the basic rate of `1,750/- per square foot for total basic sale price of `21,50,155/- by way of transfer from the earlier allottee Mrs. Usha Mahendru and Vinod Kumar Mahendru after paying the requisite transfer fee to the opposite parties-Company and after making upto date payments to said allottees. Thereafter the opposite parties-Company issued allotment letter with transfer date 14.6.2016 in the names of the complainants in respect of the flat in question containing description of the flat in question and copy of Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 3.6.2010 executed between the opposite party-Company and the earlier allottees after making endorsement of transfer in the names of complainants was also given to them. Thereafter the opposite party-Company issued possession letter dated 4.8.2016 of the flat/apartment in question and one stilt/open car parking space No.23 has been allotted to them. However, Completion Certificate, Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 N.O.C. from Forest Department and Pollution Department and certificates with regard to laying of road, water, sewerage connections etc. have not been provided to the complainants. Since the complainants had made the full payment of the total price of the Apartment along with other charges to the opposite party-Company, therefore, they had been requesting them to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed regarding the flat in question. However, the opposite party-Company had been delaying the same on one pretext or the other and finally on 17.6.2016, it raised an additional demand to pay VAT charges and VAT interest of `1,20,249/-. The complainants were in dire need of the house and opposite parties- Company also threatened them that if they would not pay the due amount, then opposite parties-Company would cancel the allotment of the flat in question and left with no other alternative the complainants deposited the said due amount. Rest of the averments are almost same as have been made by the complainants in CC No.4 of 2017. Similar reliefs have been claimed in this Consumer Complaint as have been claimed in CC No.4 of 2017. The opposite party-Company took similar pleas in their written version as have been taken by them in CC No.4 of 2017. Opposite party No.3 also took the same pleas in its reply as have been taken by it in CC No.4 of 2017. Written submissions have been submitted by the complainants. Learned counsel for the parties also raised similar arguments as have been raised by them in CC No.4 of 2017.

46. In view of my above discussion in CC No.4 of 2017, this complaint is also partly allowed in the same terms against opposite Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 parties No.1 and 2-Company and is dismissed against opposite party No.3. The following directions are issued to opposite parties Nos.1 and 2-Company:-

i) to refund `1,20,249/- to the complainants as VAT Charges illegally charged by them along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; ii) to refund `89,144/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of Service Tax along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; iii) to refund `1,00,000/- charged by the opposite party- Company on account of car parking space charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; iv) to refund `1,47,439/- retained by the opposite parties- Company on account of excess External Development Charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment;

v) to refund `50,000/- charged by them as Club Membership Charges along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; and Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2017 vi) to pay `50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental harassment and agony etc. including costs of litigation.

47. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party-Company within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT April 13, 2018 Bansal