CHHATTISGARH, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
R.S. Sharma, President, Ms. Heena Thakkar, Member, & D.K. Poddar, Member
Smt. Ethelrida Minj, Th.: Power of
Attorney Holder : Shri Nirmal Minj —Appellant
versus
Mahendra Ahuja, Chairman and Managing Director, M. Ahuja Project India Pvt.
Limited —Respondent
Appeal No. FA/13/313
Decided on 17.9.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Shri K. Anandani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shri Saurabh Shukla, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Terms and conditions filed by Builder cannot be termed as a contract or agreement.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Real estate—Booking of house—Dishonest builder—Refusal to refund booking amount—Complaint dismissed by State Commission—Burden to prove signature on terms and conditions is on respondent (O.P.), but respondent (O.P.) has not brought any material on record to establish that document bears signature of appellant (complainant—Respondent (O.P.) did not file power of attorney executed by appellant (complainant) in favour of her husband authorizing her husband to execute documents on behalf of appellant (complainant) in favour of respondent (O.P.)—If any terms and conditions was signed by husband of appellant (complainant), same is not binding on appellant (complainant)—Respondent (O.P.) has intentionally avoided to refund 50% of booking amount to appellant (complainant)—Appellant (complainant) is entitled for total booking amount from respondent—Impugned order set aside and complaint allowed. (Paras 12 to 15)
Result: Appeal allowed.
R.S. Sharma, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.03.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth “District Forum”), in Complaint Case No.188/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant) filed against the respondent (O.P.).
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed before the District Forum are that the appellant (complainant) is resident of Sanjay Nagar, Jhanda Square, Opp. Bhawani Aata Chakki, Raipur (C.G.) and the respondent (O.P.) is Chairman and Managing Director of M. Ahuja Project India Pvt. Ltd. situated at Opposite Surya Apartment, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). The respondent (O.P.) is engaged in the business of construction and sale of the houses in the name and style as Clay Castles. The respondent (O.P.) is constructing houses in village Doonda, Raipur (C.G.) and making available 2 BHK duplex houses of 860 sq ft. and 1000 sq ft and . The appellant (complainant) agreed to booked a 2 BHK house in Clay Castles and she deposited a sum of Rs.51,000/- vide cheque No.386168 dated 10.08.2011, on 31.07.2011 with the respondent (O.P.) and obtained receipt No.582. The appellant (complainant) visited the place of project and found that the place of the project was not as told by the respondent (O.P.) at the time of booking of the house. The appellant (complainant) received a letter dated 04.08.2012 from the Managing Director of the Company in which it was not mentioned any agreement was executed in respect of that house and no information has been given that when the project will start, when it will complete and till which date the house will be allotted to her. The husband of the appellant (complainant) contacted the respondent (O.P.) and inquired about the construction period but no satisfactory reply was give by the respondent (O.P.) in this regard, therefore, the appellant (complainant) requested the respondent (O.P.) to refund the booking amount which was deposited by her, but the respondent (O.P.) refused to refund the amount, then the appellant (complainant) again contacted with the Managing Director of the Company and he told the appellant (complainant) that she is only entitled to get refund of 50% of the booking amount and that amount will also be refunded to her after 16 months of the date of the booking. Therefore, the appellant (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum against the appellant (O.P.) and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the complaint.
3. The respondent (O.P.) has filed written statement and denied the allegations made by the appellant (complainant) in the complaint and pleaded that the respondent (O.P.) is a private limited Company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in business of construction and sale of the house situated at different places and respondent (O.P.) is constructing 2 BHK and 3 BHK duplex houses. The appellant (complainant) after her satisfaction has booked 2 BHK duplex house No.22 and total price of the house was Rs.17,500,000/- and the appellant (complainant) paid a sum of Rs.51,000/- as booking amount and schedule for deposit of amount is as under :- 1. Total cost of the house. 17,50,000/- 2. Amount of registration. 51,000/- 3. 20% amount is required to be deposited within 20 days of providing registration amount. 3,39,800/- 4. Monthly installments (35,000 x 15) 35,000/- 5. In sixth month. 2,00,000/- 6. In twelfth month. 2,00,000/- 7. In fifteenth month. Remaining entire amount. It has also been placed that according to para 4 of the terms and conditions of the agreement if a buyer is not able to pay the dues for two months then his/her booking will be cancelled by the decision of the management. In para 5 of the terms and conditions in case the booking is cancelled, the company management will have the right to deduct the 50% of the deposited amount. The balance amount will b