Consumer Complaint No : 127 of 2021 Date of Institution : 23.02.2021 Date of Decision : 26.08.2021 Consumer Complaint No : 126 of 2021 Date of Institution : 16.02.201 Date of Decision : 26.08.2021 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ====== Amit Aggarwal s/o Sh.Arun Kumar Aggarwal, R/o R-2-F811, First Floor, DLF Hyde Park, New Chandigarh, Mohai, Punjab ..Complainant Versus 1] DLF Universal Limited (earlier Known as DLF India Limited), having its Registered Office at Shopping Mall, 3 Floor, Arjun Marg, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurgaon 122002,rd Haryana, through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Authorised Signatory. 2] DLF Universal Limited (earlier Known as DLF India Limited), DLF Hyde Park Estate Sale Office, Chandigarh Siswan Road, Mullanpur Barrier, Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar, Punjab (earlier Address:- SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160009) through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/ Authorized Signatory. .. Opposite Parties Dr.Shruti Aggarwal W/o Dr.Ashish Aggarwal, R/o G-128, GH-2, Shikhar Apartments, Sector-5, MDC, Panchkula. ..Complainant Versus 1] DLF Universal Limited (earlier Known as DLF India Limited), having its Registered Office at Shopping Mall, 3 Floor, Arjun Marg, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurgaon 122002,rd Haryana, through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Authorised Signatory. 2] DLF Universal Limited (earlier Known as DLF India Limited), DLF Hyde Park Estate Sale Office, Chandigarh Siswan Road, Mullanpur Barrier, Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar, Punjab (earlier Address:- SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160009) through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/ Authorized Signatory. .. Opposite Parties BEFORE: SH.RAJAN DEWAN PRESIDENT SH.B.M.SHARMA MEMBER Sh.Narender Yadav, Adv. for the complainant.Argued by :- Sh.Kunal Dawar, Adv. for OPs PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER By this common order, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned two consumer complaints in which similar questions of law and facts are involved. 2] The facts are being taken from the present Complaint Case No.126 of 2021 Amit Aggarwal Vs. DLF Universal Limited & Anr.. 3] Briefly stated, the complainant booked a flat in DLF Hyde Park Project of OPs at Mullanpur New Chandigarh and availed construction linked plan. It is averred that the total price of the unit was fixed Rs.71,47,800/- for saleable area of 1881 sq. ft. and the complainant till now paid an amount of Rs.91,12,303/- including contingent VAT amount of Rs.1,23,804/- to the OPs for 1900 sq. ft. The OPs entered into an agreement with complainants called Independent Floor Buyers Agreement vide agreement dated 13.2.2013 whereby a unit/independent floor No.R2-F 811 FF (First Floor) with parking No.P-1F was allotted to the complainant (Ann.C-1). It is also averred that the OP No.1 vide letter dated 28.9.2016 (Ann.C-2) offered the physical possession of the unit while admitting the fact of receipt of occupation certificate for independent floor and asked complainant to deposit Rs.15,03,892.90 within one month with condition that non-submission of payment as outlined in the letter within 30 days of final statement of account would attract interest Holding Charges @Rs.10/- per sq. feet per month as per terms & conditions of Clause 13 of Floor Buyer Agreement. It is stated that OP No.1 Builder vide letter dated 28.9.2016 (Ann.C-2) with a subject handing over the independent floor asked the complainants to deposit Contingent Deposit of Vat @Rs.14.55 per sq. feet i.e. Rs.1,23,804/- which was an arbitrary & illegal demand. It is submitted that the complainant ultimately paid the Contingent deposit of VAT amount of Rs.1,23,804/- on 26.12.2016 (Ann.C-3). It is also submitted that the OP-Builder demanded the Rs. 1,23,804/- for contingent deposit of VAT @ Rs. 65.16/- per sq. ft. which was not mentioned in agreement and in schedule of payments decided by the OP-Builder unilaterally while admitting the fact that there is lot of ambiguity about the principles and methods of calculation of VAT paid under composition scheme. Further pleaded that OP-Builder admitted the fact that same has to be paid in accordance with the scheme to be notified by the Punjab Govt. It is also submitted that neither OP-Builder is imposing the VAT as per composition scheme of the Punjab Govt. nor the Govt. has asked the Builders to charge the VAT @ Rs. 65.16 per sq ft from the buyers and despite all that the OP-Builder Illegally & unilaterally charged the amount in dispute with a purpose to use it in their other projects. It is pleaded that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Hon'ble Consumer Commissions and District Forum held that Govt. and Builders cannot ask the VAT charges after completion of certificate and no such law or notification which state that VAT charges has to be paid by the buyers. It is stated that the complainant has been requesting the OP Builder and also sent email to it (Ann.C-4) to refund the contingent deposit of VAT amount and it has been 48 months since the amount was deposited by the complainant and further, the complainant asked for the receipt if the said amount had been deposited with the government but the OP Builder neither sent the receipt nor refunded the amount with interest. It is also stated that the complainant also came to know from other allottees that the OP Builder has not supplied the receipt of Contingent deposit of VAT to the other allottees also, which proves unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs by usurping the hard earned money of complainant and other allottees and further not depositing the same to government and further earning huge profits as interest on the same by keeping it in bank. It is also pleaded that no a single builder in Punjab is charging VAT Contingent of deposit as the same was not asked by Punjab Govt. and the OP Builder illegally using the VAT Contingent of deposit which is illegal. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 2] The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that as per Punjab VAT Act, there is no clarity in the stand of VAT authorities, hence to safeguard the interest of complainants/ floor/unit buyers, the OPs evolved the mechanism for keeping the VAT provisional deposit to be refunded when the right to take action gets extinguished or in case any action is taken, the liability finally decided. It is stated that whatever would be the final VAT liability, if any, in terms of agreement, that falls on the complainants, accordingly, a mutually acceptable medium was evolved whereby the complainant had to deposit contingent VAT to be kept by OPs to be deposit if any demand is raised at any stage and the shortfall/excess shall be recovered/paid back from the complainants and if no demand is raised and the proceedings gets time barred, the OPs would return the contingent deposit with interest accrued thereon. Stated all the demand raised in FSA are as per Agreement executed between the parties & at this stage complainant breaching the said agreement & the same is not permissible in law. It is stated that each and every payment has been fully explained in agreement. It is pleaded that in case the demand is not raised, within the limitation period, the amount is to be returned to the allottees per Note 2 of the FSA of 28.9.2016. It is denied that OPs have committed any deficiency in service or have engaged in unfair trade practice. It is submitted that in the instant case the complainant agreed to pay taxes in terms of the agreement and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Denying other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3] Parties led evidence in support of their contention. 4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record including written arguments. 5] After thorough perusal of documents placed on record, we are of the opinion that the OP-Builder demanding huge amount of Contingent deposit of VAT when there is neither any such obligation imposed by the Government nor any communication has been made by the competent authority, is unlawful. Demanding such money in anticipation based on an hypothetical presumption that there may be such financial obligation in future, amounts to malpractice showing deficiency in service on the part of OPs. There is no document on record to show that the OP Builder is well within his right to ask the Contingent deposit of VAT. The OP Builder asking payment of VAT, as a part of his bargain as a pre-condition for handing over the possession of the flat, clearly indicates use of coercive method to compel the consumer/complainants to pay the huge amount of contingent deposit of VAT, is highly condemnable. The request of the complainant for refund of the said deposit i.e. Contingent deposit of VAT or the receipt in case the said amount has been deposited with the Government, has not been acceded to by the OPs. Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by OPs, is clearly established, which not only caused financial loss to the complainants, but also caused them immense harassment. 6] In the light of above observations, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainants and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the complaint stands allowed with direction to OPs to refund an amount of Rs.1,23,804/- along with interest @10% p.a. from the date of deposit till its payment, as the OPs are themselves imposing interest Holding Charges @Rs.10/- per sq. Ft. per month as per Clause 13 of the Floor Buyer Agreement. The OPs are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainants towards compensation for causing him mental agony and harassment, along with litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-. 7] Similarly, the connected consumer Complaint No.127 of 2021 - Dr.Shruti Aggarwal Vs. DLF Universal Limited & Anr. also stands allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to refund an amount of Rs.1,23,804/- along with interest @10% p.a. from the date of deposit till its payment, as the OPs are themselves imposing interest Holding Charges @Rs.10/- per sq. Ft. per month as per Clause 13 of the Floor Buyer Agreement. The OPs are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainants towards compensation for causing her mental agony and harassment, along with litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-. The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.25,000/- in each case, apart from the above awarded amount. 8] A copy of this order be placed in connected consumer Complaint No.127 of 2021 - Dr.Shruti Aggarwal Vs. DLF Universal Limited & Anr. The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned. Announced

26 August, 2021 th sd/- (RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER