Below is the national consumer dispute redressal commission's interim order.
We 46 residents of RPS savana started this fight in National consumer forum last year against illegal VAT demand raised by M/s RPS Infrastructures Ltd. and with continues and tireless efforts, on 2nd March 2017 hearing of this case , Court has admitted our case under Consumer protection act's Section 12(1)c.
As it is clear from the order that all 2296 allottees can be part of this case and very soon information to join the case will be published in newspapers "Times of India" & "Navbharat Times" .
This case do include compensation for overcharged EDC & EEDC and few other things.
The compensation demanded for each person is approx 6 lakhs.
Affected buyers please join us in this fight.
Contact below person through mail for any further query.
Rishav Chandra Choudharyrishavcch@gmail.com
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CONSUMER CASE NO. 454 OF 2016
1. SUMIT BANSAL & 45 ORS.
FALT NO. 805, TOWEER-2, RPS SAVANA, RPS CITY, SECTOR-88,
1. M/S. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED
1117-1120, 11TH FLOOR, TOWER-B, DLF TOWERS, JASOLA DISTRICT CENTRE,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Complainant :
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate
Ms. Anuja Jain, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Advocate
Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Prajulla Sinha, Advcoate
Dated : 02 Mar 2017
IA/4505/2016 (For permission to file joint complaint)
This is an application seeking permission in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act to file this complaint on behalf of or for the benefit of all the allottees of residential flat in a project namely RPS Savana which the OP is developing in Sector-88 of Faridabad, on the ground that all these allottees have two common grievances against the OP; first being with respect to recovery of VAT from them and the other being with respect to the recovery of alleged excess EDC. Relying upon the decision rendered by a three-members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the application is allowed since the reliefs sought in the complaint are said to be common to all the allottees in the project. The learned counsel for the OP wants me to examine at least prima facie the merits of the complaint before grant of the permission sought by the complainant. However, in my view, the merits of the averments need not be gone into at this stage. This is a matter which needs to be examined while considering the complaint on merits. The contention is therefore, not acceptable.
As there are 2296 units in the above referred project which are being developed by the OP, it is not reasonably practicable to serve individual notices to such large number of public and hence, a public notice of the complaint be published in “Times of India” and “Nav Bharat Times” published from Delhi/NCR for 18.05.2017.
The learned counsel for the OP requests that the publication of the notice may be deferred in order to enable the OP to challenge this order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The request is declined.