[Resolved]  Rajesh Projects India Pvt Ltd/ Rg Luxury — unethical/one sided conditions in the apartment buyers agreement

Address:

Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh

Dear Sir,

I had booked an apartment in RG luxury Noida Extension presently named as Greater Noda (west). At the time of booking , Noida Extension did not have NCR board approval and no projects were being given home loan by Banks to the home buyers. I signed an application form of more than 20 pages which these people do not give customer chance to read at the time of booking. I received apartment buyer agreement which is a thick book (A4 size i.e photocopy paper size) containing 70 pages. i trook the pain to read it before signing and found the agreement one sided and as per the content allottee is at complete mercy of the builder. Provisions made in application form are different in the agreement for some issues like transfer charges and many conditions are new or have also been changed which is unethical , I had sent a letter dated 14.09.12 to the builder and requested to reply but despite my reminders and telephonic talks they have not responded and their CRM staff have refused to reply. I sent letter by email, fax and speed post, they told that they have not received any one. I had to fax three four times and had to chase like any thing and then they confirmed that they have received but their Manager (CRM) Ms Mamta Saun told me that they will not give any reply to my letter. They will not make any change in the agreement also. I also requested her to get me connected to some senior executive that also she refused.

Then I asked their receptionist to connect me to their Director Mr. Rajesh Goel, she told that this can not be done because he is very senior person. She advised me to talk to Ms Mamta Saun only who already refused to reply my grievances that means senior executive of this company do not want to listen to grievance of their customer and the customer can not access them. In such condition how can one expect a better product from them.

I am reproducing the content of my letter below where any one can see the kind of monopoly the builder impose on their customer, Allottee has to bear huge penalties for any lapse or no lapse and builder does not have to suffer anything for any default. As per the agreement, Timely payment is the essence of contract but timely possession is not. Maintenance agreement is also the part of this said agreement wherein there is not period specified for the agreement but there are very serious clause for levying penalties on flat buyer for their minor default but no action/conditions proposed in the maintenance agreemnet against the maintenance agency for their default. this is ridiculous.

Some one may please see this whole thing and may please suggest/advise what to be done against the builder.

Content of my letter to the builder as below :


Subject: Apartment number: D-2403 In RG Luxury Home at Greater Noida (Noida Extension)

With reference to your letter dated 04.09.2012 enclosing therewith Apartment buyer agreement for aforesaid apartment, I wish to submit following:
1. Please confirm whether the project has become bankable, if yes please inform the name /address of the bank who have approved the project for home loan. Payment terms for second installments need to be modified accordingly to give time 9say 45-60 days from the date project become bankable..
2. Is there is any charge towards DC/IDC at present as stipulated in agreement clause 1.2.
3. Clause 1.9 a) and b) regarding change in design, floor, facing etc are not acceptable as any body who books an apartment thinks many times about location of the apartment. Please delete this clause.
4. Clause 1.15 (i) mentions laod factor 70% and overall diversity 65%. Kindly explain the meaning thereof.
5. Please also clarify whether there will be any charges towards water consumption. If so, please specify whether you will take water connection from the GNIDA. Water consumption charges should be as per GNIDA charges if any. Please confirm.
6. Provision of any additional construction made in clause 1.19 (iv) should not change the basic layout of the complex having central park of 7 acres , 1 acre forest, Podium, 4 lifts in each tower etc etc as shown in your brochure at the time of booking because the layout shown at the time of booking has been the main consideration to book apartment in RG luxury.
7. Clause no. 1,21 is also against the spirit of para 6 above.
8. Clause 9 and 10 regarding change in design,layout, floor, facing etc depict total uncertainty about the what one books and what one may get. If there is any change expected that should be told now not later. Please confirm that you will stick to what is shown/ displayed as sample flat or in specification at the time of booking. Further once the project is launched and booking done based on the already permitted FSI/FAR and costing based thereon, company should not obtain additional FAR /FSI otherwise this violates the basic ethics of business.
9. Clause 12 mentions that allottee shall be liable to pay maintenance charges from the date of grant of occupation certificate by the concerned authority which is not fair, it should be from date of offer for possession to the allottee.
10. Adjustment of compensation for delay in should be done right from month of start of delay in place of at the time of sub-lease deed as specified in clause 14.
11. Clause 20 (b) regarding giving roof on lease or hire to any third party except other than those required by the residents of the complex is not acceptable.
12. Clause 28 is repetition of clause 9 and 10 as far as FSI/FAR /construction of additional structure is concerned and therefore, comments at para 8 above are applicable.
13. The words “maintenance agency” mentioned in para 18,23,24 etc need to beclarified whether it refer to RWA ?
14. Clause 34 is silent about charges for transfer whereas in the application form it is unambiguously mentioned for first transfer and charges thereon. In the application transfer charges are mentioned as Rs 100/- sqft whereas in the agreement, it is not mentioned . Rather company may impose any other amount at the time of transfer. This is unethical to change this condition.
15. Clause 36 again depict uncertainty as brought out at para 8 above and not in line with buyers sentiments to book a home.
16. Clause 52 regarding transfer of ownership
17. Part E of annexure-IV mentions about shops and other commercial establishments . Please confirm that these will be beyond the area of the said complex of total area of 74,731.24 sq mtr. Further, no club membership will be given to people who are not residents of the complex and ultimately ownership of the complex will be transferred to representative body of the residents after (say) 1-2 years or on formation of RWA if it happens earlier.
18. Annexure-VII (draft for maintenance agreement) is silent about period of agreement and its termination provisions not incorporated therein. No agreement can be for life time since any party can have any issue specially when this agreement has been drafted with interest protection of one side only.
19. Clause 6 (x) of annexure VII regarding LD equivalent to 12 months is also not fair and reasonable. It should be upto the extent of default and market interest thereon.
You are requested to please look into above issues raised by me which are quite genuine and fair considering business ethics. I do not want to disobey your guidelines but at the same time my rights to get home of my choice and fair terms and conditions need to be maintained.
Please convey the resolution of issues raised above so as to enable me to sign the agreement.


from above I feel no one should book apartment in RG group otherwise this kind of harassment will be faced.

with best regards,

Ashok
[protected]