IMPORTANT POINT
State Commission would not interfere with the well reasoned and detailed order of the District Forum in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member —Ankur Malhotra (in short “the appellant”) has filed this appeal against the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (in short the ‘District Forum’).

2. Facts in brief are that the Ankur Malhotra appellant/complainant filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the “Act”). It was pleaded that on the offer of the respondent before launching of the project and allotment of plot to the general public, appellant purchased the booking of the plot from one Amarpal Singh son of Sh. Gurdev Singh and the booking of the plot measuring 250 Sq. yards was allowed by the respondent vide letter dated 25.8.2008 in favour of the appellant and also issued the receipt of payment of Rs.2,60,000 along with the transfer letter of the booking in favour of the appellant.

3. Vide letter dated 5.3.2009, the respondent issued the allotment letter with the list of the proposed allottee and allotted a plot No.563 measuring 180 Sq. yards and also issued the payment plan y installments and asked the appellant to make the payment of the balance sale consideration of the residential plot as per the schedule of payment and to pay the same by 30th November, 2009 by way of six equal installments i.e. 90% of the sale consideration and 10% of the balance at the time of intimation of possession i.e. by 31.1.2010 and also issued further principal terms and conditions forming a part of his application for provisional allotment of residential plot in JTPL City, Mohali mentioning therein different terms and conditions which were not acceptable to the allottee because at the time of pre-launching scheme, the respondent assured that the possession of the plot shall be delivered immediately on the receipt of the full and final payment. But as per the terms and conditions supplied, it was mentioned that the possession of the plot shall be delivered within a period of 24 months approximately from the date of execution of the allotment letter as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Clause 17 of Appendix A and forwarded the same for signature of the appellant.

4. As per the allotment letter dated 5.3.2009, the total amount was directed to be paid by the appellant on or before 31.1.2010 where as the respondent was to deliver the possession of the plat to the appellant after a period of 24 months i.e. in April, 2011 from the receipt of interim amount. These new conditions put in the allotment letter amounts to unfair trade practice and the respondent wants to make use of the huge amount by delaying the delivery of the possession of the plot. Immediately after the receipt of the allotment letter and proposed terms and conditions, the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent dated 28.3.2009 requesting to clarify the points with regard to date of possession of the plot and in case the possession of the plot is not delivered immediately then in the alternative to reschedule the payment of the installments and to consider the payment of interest on the delayed payment. In reply to the letter dated 28.03.2009, the respondent vide letter dated 13.4.2009 did not give any specific reply to the queries raised by the appellant and mentioned that every effort shall be made to handover the possession in 18 months or so and they will be charging interest @ 24% as per the policy of the company. In all, appellant has already paid 60% of the total cost of the plot but the development work of JTPL Township has already been stand still and they will not be able to complete the development work even upto March, 2011 and in this way, the respondent will mis-use the crores of rupees collected from the allottees even upto this year. In case such type of conditions were put forward by the respondent at the time of registration, the appellant would not have booked the plot with the respondent but with some other developer. Inspite of the receipt of