Complaint Details

Status	:	Closed
Complaint No	:	0002401/2012
Category	:	Real Estate
Date	:	11-10-2012
Subject Line	:	Noida Authority Housing Scheme 2006-07(H) (02)
Complainant	:	Prabhat Kumar Mishra
Address	:	UG-3, Plot No 101-102, Pocket-1, Sec-7, Ramprastha Greens Vaishali Extn. Ghaziabad
Complainee	:	New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Address	:	New Okhla Industrial Development Authority), NOIDA Administrative Block, Sector-6, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP

Complaint Details
1. That theNoida Authority under the housing scheme no. 2006-07 H(02) had invited an offer to provide 400 EWS (Economically weaker section), 1050 LIG (Low Income Group), 500 MIG (Middle Income Group) and 200 HIG (High income group) numbers of flats. The date of commencement of the offer was 27.10.2006 and the date of the closure of the offer was 27.11.2006. The same was communicated to the public at large through various medium and national newspapers. The copy of the same is enclosed herein
2. That the terms and condition mentioned in the prospectus of the offer of Hosing Scheme is enclosed herein . That the same were binding on both the parties i.e. Complainants on one end and the respondent i.e. NOIDA on the other end. As per these terms, the estimated cost of the each MIG flat for a super area of 112 square Meter was fixed at Rs. 21,65,000/- with an earnest money (Registration deposit Money) of Rs. 2,25,000/- which was required to be paid in advance along with application for the allocation of flat . As per the terms and condition mentioned in the prospectus, the estimated Cost of Each flat for area of 112 sqm was fixed as Rs21, 65,000/- which works out to Rs 19330/- per sqm. Therefore, under the said terms, which are binding on both the parties, any increase/decrease of flat area beyond/below 112 sqm ,would have resulted in increase /decrease of flat cost @ Rs 19330/sqm on proportionate basis. Further, as per the terms and condition of agreement/prospectus there was no mention of any cost towards future community service, cross-subsidy of EWS, additional subsidy or any miscellaneous or unaccounted charge (money). The above mentioned facts become relevant in light of the dispute involved in the present case which is discussed in the later part of the complaint.
3. as per the terms and conditions of agreement , the provisional allotment was to be made through draw of lots and the successful applicants were required to pay entire cost of flat(Rs 21,65,000/-) in advance after adjusting the Earnest Money. Further, as per the terms, the flats were to be constructed within a period of 2-3 years. That, the flats were to be allotted on the basis of draw of lottery. The draw of provisional allotment was held in January, 2007, by which the complainants were provisionally allotted the MIG flats. Copy of the draw is enclosed
4. That the terms and conditions of initial allotment letter as well as the terms and clauses of the prospectus were duly complied and honored by each of the complainant, who paid the entire amount of Rs. 21,65,000/- on March 2007 (including the registration deposit money of Rs. 2,25,000/-) in advance to the authority after taking loans from the various banks.
5. on 04.11.2008, the status about the progress of the MIG flats under construction was enquired vide RTI Act 2005 by complainant. In response to the RTI application dated 04.11.2008, the respondent, i.e. NOIDA replied vide letter dated 10.11.2008 that the flats shall be completed before 30.06.2009. The copy of the reply is herein enclosed. That, the Complainant found no reason to disbelieve the same as the reply has been emanated under the authoritative effect of the statute and therefore continued to pay EMI /interest on home loans and also the rental for House taken on Rent, as they were doing before on the faith that their home would be handed over to them as per the agreed time frame.
6. contrary to the terms of agreement and contrary to the reply dated 10.11.2008; the respondent did not complete the project by its due date i.e. 30.06.2009. That having paid all the advance money for the flat, the complainant was left with no option but to patiently wait for the authority to complete the project and bear the triple financial burden of not only the EMI but also the interest on advances as well as the rental charges. That, on repeated enquiry from respondent, the respondent kept on giving repeated false assurances and gave evasive reply about the date of completion of project
7. 11. That, with shear disregard to the terms of agreement, and to reply dated 10.11.2008, the delay in completion of project, prolonged for months together as the authority miserably missed the deadline of 30.06.2009 for the completion of the project and it was only completed in January, 2011. The draw of flat was accordingly announced in January, 2011
8. NOIDA further added salt to the wound vide Demand letter, Dated 25th Jan 2011, the copy of which is enclosed herein, by demanding an extra payment @ Rs 7,54,450/- per flat for Ground Floor ,Rs 6,87,850/- for First Floor, Rs 599,050/- for second floor and Rs5,32,350 for third floor to be paid in a lumpsum, with the delay in payment of the same made chargeable to interest @ 13% p.a., w.e.f. from January, 2011 .
9. That after suffering huge financial losses because of the delay, this demand of the escalated cost came as an abrupt shock for the complainants, however left with no option, all the allottes strongly protested against this fraudulent and arbitrary hike by the respondent and immediately demanded complete roll back of the entire escalation. The copies of such Protests are herein annexed. After facing lot of opposition from Complainants and others and under pressure of Media, the responded relented a bit and the escalated amount was partially reduced by Rs 2, 16,500/- for each flat.
10. 14. Further, in utter disregard to transparency which is the main characteristic and identity of Government Department, Respondent i.e. NOIDA cleverly concealed the basis of this arbitrary Hike in Cost. Furthermore, no reason was furnished for the increase in cost price of the flats, despite repeated enquiry and demands from the complainants. That, the respondent further crossed the limit of highhandedness when no respect was shown to even RTI ACT and despite filing a number of RTI applications by complainants seeking Costing details of Each flat, none was satisfactorily Replied. The copies of such RTI applications
11. That instead of furnishing the reasons for the escalation of the cost price of the flat and providing reprieve to the complainants, the respondent by way of notification dated ……… enclosed as Annexure C 11 further burdened the complainants with additional interest @13 % p.a. for any delayed payment and a Penalty @Rs 100/day for delay in taking possession . It was notified that on any unpaid amount an interest @ 13% p.a. would be charged from January 2011 and not from May 2011. Stung by such arbitrary notifications and after having paid the entire advance amount of Rs 21.65 lakhs four years earlier, the Complainant were left with no option but to bow to the arbitrary demand of the Noida Authority.
12. That, the flat scheduled to be handed over in 30.06.2009 could be handed over to some of complainants after a delay of 23 months on 31.05.2011
13. Further to the escalated amount, each complainant was burdened with an additional amount of Rs 2.50 lacs towards registry and payment of lease rent to the respondent before the possession of the flat could be taken by them. That this escalated cost along with registry charges and lease charges were arranged by the complainants by way of further loans from banks/financial institutions. It was further notified by respondent that in case the allottes fail to pay the registration amount by 31.05.2011, penalty would be imposed @ Rs. 100 per day and an interest @ 13% p.a. would be charged. That on one hand the respondent imposed the pre-conditions of paying escalated amount /registry fees before taking possession( and refused to hand over the possession unless both were complied) and on the other hand levied a penalty @ Rs 100 /day for failure to take possession. The complainants who could not arrange the full finances for this illegal demand of escalated amount plus the registry amount were required to bleed further in the form of payment of interest @13 % pa and or penalty @ Rs 100/day for non registration/non possession. Already reeling under the triple financial burden of paying the rental/interest/EMI on the loan taken from the bank , the complainant therefore were forced to pay the said amount under protest.
14. 20. That, the deficiency in the service, pathetic site Condition and inferior quality also drew the attention of the media and press houses with various Articles appearing in the press citing the poor quality of work done by the respondent i.e. NOIDA annexed as Annexure C 12. Not being able to come to the fact with regards to the deplorable and inhabitable conditions of the flats and leaving up of the same on the destiny, the complaints repeatedly visited the respondent i.e. NOIDA office and made a number of representations to the respondent. . The copy of these representations is enclosed as Annexure C 13. However the Respondent turned blind eye to these miseries of the complainants. Finally, after lot of persuasion/protests these deficiencies were admitted by the respondent vide minutes dated 21.06.2012. The copy of minutes is enclosed as Annexure C 14. The text of the some of the paragraph of minutes is reproduced below. It is admitted by the respondent i.e. authority that :-
i) THERE IS NO COMMUNITY CENTRE.
ii) THE BOUNDARY WALL WORK IS NOT COMPLETE.
iii) THE GARDEN /HORTICULTURE/GREEN BELT WORK IS NOT COMPLETE.
iv) NO PLANTATION WORK IS DONE.
v) RCC CHAJJA IS IN BAD SHAPE.
vi) THERE IS LOT OF EARTH DEBRIS.
vii) THE STREET LIGHT IS NOT WORKING PROPERLY.
viii) THERE ARE NO SIGN BOARDS.
ix) THERE IS NO CONNECTION OF DRAINAGE AND SEWERAGE TO OUTSIDE MAIN.
x) THE INTERNAL DRAINS ARE IN DAMAGED CONDITIONS.
xi) THE MAN HOLE COVERS ARE MISSING /OPEN.
xii) THE TILE WORK OF ROAD IS NOT PROPER AND NEED REPAIR.
xiii) THERE ARE SEEPAGES IN BATHROOMS AND SHAFTS.
xiv) THERE ARE LEAKAGES IN PIPES.

That, as per this admittance of the Respondent, even as on this date, the flat are in deplorable/pathetic conditions and suffers from severe defects and is not habitable.
14. That, despite total Concealment of account details by NOIDA and despite sheer violation and disregard of RTI Act 2005 by respondent, one of the Complainants continued to make efforts to find out the truth and filed First appeal of RTI before NOIDA. However, the respondent rejected the appeal without assigning any reason. Undeterred by this arbitrary Conduct, the second appeal was therefore filed before the State Information Commissioner at Lucknow. The Commissioner expressed deep anguish and surprise at the sheer disregard of RTI Act and ordered the respondent, vide Order dated 29.07.2011 to supply the details to the complainant by 15.09.11, Copy of order is enclosed
15. Under order from the State Information Commissioner dated 29.07.2011, the required information of Cost details was reluctantly furnished to the complainant on 08.09.2011. The copy of the details furnished is annexed herein as Annexure C 16. That, on careful perusal and analysis of the details, the Complainants came to know about the real reason and malafide intent of the respondent behind concealment of facts and reluctance towards transparency
16. That, the apprehensions of the Complainants that they were overcharged without any basis turned out to be true as per this information supplied vide letter dated 08.09.2011(C16). That, the Cost details shown in the RTI was in complete contravention of the terms of agreement provided in the Prospectus. On evaluation of the costing details provided by NOIDA vide letter dated 08.09.2011 , it was found that the Escalation charged was arbitrary, malafide, unilateral, illegal, unreasonable ,illogical, afterthought, deifying natural justice and in contravention to terms of agreement as evident from the following grounds.
a) That the counsel of the respondent , while pleading before information commissioner on 04.08.2011 in the second appeal filed by the complainant no.22 (under the RTI ACT) has admitted that the details about the Costing of flat were not ready as yet and therefore could not be furnished. This shows that either there was no material basis for over -charging of the flat or the costing details were purposely concealed with the malafide intent.
b) That as mentioned on page no 2 of the details, column no 5 of Cost calculation, the subsidy of Rs 2,00,000/- was already loaded in the Estimated cost of Rs 21,65,000/- It is also pertinent to mention herein that, the said subsidy was concealed from the complainants even at the time of signing the agreement, therefore the substance and element of fraud started from the first step itself and therefore the complainants signed the agreement under the impression that the entire amount of Rs 21,65,0000/- shall be utilized towards their flat and their consent for diversion of funds of Rs 2,00,000/- towards subsidy was not taken in the agreement. That, contrary to the estimated cost of Rs 21.65 lakhs for area of 112 sqm published in notice dated 27.10.2006; the actual cost of each flat was Rs 19.65 lacs (21.65-2.0) and not 21.65lacs.
c) That the additional subsidy of Rs 149750/- as mentioned in costing details in Column 5, page 2, was not part of the agreement and is therefore illegal.
d) That the additional cost of Rs 171650/- and Rs 17200/- as mentioned in costing details towards future community service was never part of the agreement. Moreover no such communities services are provided by authority as also admitted vide Minutes shown in exhibit C 12. Therefore this provision is not only illegal and bad in law but also contrary to terms of agreement.
e) That the extra amount charged to the flat cost as in 22 b, c and d was never part of the prospectus and was in total contravention to the agreement between the NOIDA and the complainants. That , the retrospective imposition of cost on the Complainants, was against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India & Anr., {(2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC)}, wherein the court has laid down that a retrospective imposition of tax or any other charges by a statutory body is bad in law.
f) That the Cost calculation provided by the respondent suffered from serious defect as it ignored the interest earned by the respondent on the advance deposit made by the complainants along with other allottes on amount of Rs. 1021.88 Lakhs (472*21.65) for the period from February 2007 to February 2011. That, this interest earning formed a substantial part and ought to have been used to adjust the escalation of cost of the project.
g) That as provided on page 1 of RTI reply dated 08.09.2011, the area of each flat was reduced to 96.607 sqm against promised area of 112 sqm in the agreement. That despite reduction in area by more than 10 % ,no refund was provided. On the contrary the cost was superficially hiked to Rs 28,09,900/- as reflected on page no 2 of cost calculation. That the cost per sqm of each flat as mentioned in the agreement was Rs 19330( 21,65,000 for 112 sqm) and therefore for reduced area of 96.607 sqm the revised cost works out to Rs 18,67,448/- against which the authority demanded an amount of Rs 28,09,900/- . That this demand of Rs 28, 08,900/- against Rs 18, 67,448/- was not only illegal but also in complete contravention of the terms of agreement.
h) That, the above reasons makes it amply clear that the respondents instead of accepting its mistake and correcting the error chose to justify the overcharging by some arbitrary reverse calculation.

17. That the respondents charged much more than the normal market rate prevailing in the market and those charged by other similar statutory bodies like DDA (Delhi Development Authority) and CPWD in similar locations. The plinth area rate of construction charged by DDA in the year 2009 (corresponding period of construction by respondent) circulated vide letter No. F-21 (1671)2001.HAC.Pt-1/353, Dated 17, December, 2009 copy annexed herein as Annexure C 17 is Rs. 10500/sqm for flats without lift. Therefore for an area of 96.607 sqm, the construction cost in the year 2009-2010 works out to be Rs 10, 14, 300/- against which the respondent charged an exorbitant amounting to Rs. 17, 16,400/- . The estimated cost of each flat as per original demand was Rs 21,65,000/- in which land component was Rs 5,55,150/- (as per provided in RTI reply dated 08.09.2011) and the construction component of Rs 16,09,850/-(2165000-555150) was much higher than the construction cost of Rs 10,14,300/- as charged by DDA /CPWD . That this over charging was not only illegal and bad in law but was also in complete contravention of Terms of agreement. Further, the area of the flat was reduced by respondent from 112 sqm to 96.605 sqm without the consent or any consultation with the complainants.
18. 24. That after having paid the entire amount in advance four years before, there was no occasion for cost escalation as the escalation would have been compensated by the interest earned on the advanced deposits
19. That, the actual construction quality/specification of the flats is very poor and much lower than the similar flats offered by other statutory and local bodies like DDA and CPWD in the similar locations. The qualities of the materials used in the flats were far below the normal habitable standard and there were a number of deficiencies as elaborated in the earlier part of the complaint
20. 26. That further the respondents have handed possession of the flats to the complainant, which is of much lower total area as promised in the prospectus or the revised calculation provided by them. This is clear from their reply to a RTI dated 8 September 2011, wherein they have mentioned the total built area to be 96.607 sqm, unit area as 78.226 sqm and the land component to be 74.02 sqm. This calculation is logically and practically impossible, since if the land component is 74.02 sqm, then the super built up area over it can not be 96.607 sqm, since the building is constructed only on the land area and therefore the super area will in no circumstances be bigger than the land area. It has to be either equal to or lesser than the land area. This is another proof of misrepresentation, fraud and deficiency of service on the part of the respondent
21. Complainants then caused a Legal Notice dated 20/06/2012 but no response.

Replies