IMPORTANT POINT
Refund of amount deposited by complainant upheld for non-delivery of possession of flat within stipulated time.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member.—

Taken up in physical hearing.

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 03.07.2015 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’, in F.A. No. 433 of 2015 arising out of the Order dated 13.03.2015 in C.C. No. 529 of 2011 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari, hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’.

The Petitioner herein, Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd., was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Builder Co.’.

The Respondent herein, Mr. J.S. Yadav, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.

2. Heard arguments from learned Counsel for the Builder Co. and the learned Counsel for the Complainant on 19.10.2020.

Perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 13.03.2015 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 03.07.2015 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3. The rival contentions have been succinctly articulated by the District Forum in paras 1 and 2 of its Order of 13.03.2015:

[1] Factual matrix comprising the case of the complainant, shorn of details, is that the complainant had booked a flat of 1500 sq. fts. area for three bed accommodation with the opposite party by paying a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 10.1.2007 with the application for provisional registration. It is alleged that as per condition of the application, neither the flat was allotted within the stipulated period not the amount was refunded in spite of repeated requests; hence this complaint seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. besides compensation and litigation expenses.

2. In reply, it is averred that the complainant made a provisional registration of a three bedroom flat of 1500 sq. fts. by paying an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 10.1.2007 and the allotment was subject to due execution of the company’s agreement. It is also averred that the complainant failed to deposit the remaining amount in spite of sending various reminders. It is alleged that in terms of Clause 14.1, the construction of the flat was subject to completing all the requisite approvals and subject to force majeure which are beyond their control and in case cancellation of apartment, the amount is refundable only after deducting 10% of the total sale price of the apartment. It is further averred that the construction work of apartments is in full swing and they are ready to perform the part of the promise of providing apartment subject to payment of the dues. In the end, dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

4. The District Forum, vide its Order dated 13.03.2015, allowed the Complaint.

For ready appreciation, extracts from the appraisal made by the District Forum are reproduced below:

4) It is not disputed that no agreement in between the parties has been executed so far. However, the applicant had moved an application for provisional registration of flat on 22.1.2007 which contains terms and conditions of the allotment. Clause “a” of the application reads as under:-

“That your offer of allotment for flat in your proposed scheme shall as far as possible be made to me / us within 9 months of my registration / or application made therein failing which I / we shall be entitled to simple interest @ 10% p.a. thereafter”.

Thus, it is made clear that the offer of allotment of flat in the proposed scheme was to be made within nine months of application and in case of default of either party, the money will be returned by deducting 10% with simple interest. We have anxiously perused the record of the case. No evidence has been led nor no cogent reason has been given for not completing the construction in time till today even after a lapse of 7 years. The cont