Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member
Milan —Complainant
versus
M/s Mahindra Lifespace Developers Limited
and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.105 of 2013
Decided on 27.10.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Uttam Chand Mittal, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Nitin Sen, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
For default in payments towards purchase of a flat, refund of amount deposited with amounts deducted towards administrative charges, etc. upheld.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 58]—Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the promotion of Construction, Scale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963—Sections 4 and 3—Allotment of Flat—Cancellation—Legality of—Case of the complainant that after receiving a reservation letter dated 30.3.2011, he has made payment of Rs. 45,62,107 by 27.6.2011—In this period OP should have made available agreement for sale and the same should have been executed, but not done so—Nothing brought on record to show that because of non-sighing and registration of sale agreement, complainant was prevented from obtaining a loan from the banks—There in also no evidence on record to show that he had made any effort to persuade the OP to sign and register the sale agreement as per Section 4 of Act of 1963—Even since the complainant was in payment defaults by over a year, had only offering post-dated cheques—Thus, opposite party left with no option but to terminate the agreement—After deducting administrative charges and losses suffered, opposite party made a refund of Rs. 27,64,276/-. (Paras 12 to 17)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member.—This Consumer Complaint No.105 of 2013 has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 25.04.2013, by Mr. Milan against OP1, Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd., a company registered under Companies Act, 1956, with registered office at Worli, Mumbai-400018, alleging unfair trade practice and gross negligence in service.
2. Complainant, lured by various advertisements of a residential project “Angelica” at Mahindra Eminents S V Road Goregaon (West), Mumbai- 400062, approached OP1 and filled in a standard application form on 28.3.2011 towards purchase of Flat No.2003 in the said project of approximately carpet area of 1255.94 Sq. feet comprising 3 BHK with 2 covered car parking against a total agreed sale consideration of Rs.2,26,81,250/- (Rupees two crore twenty six lakh eighty one thousand two hundred fifty only). After a token payment of Rs.10,30,000/-, he was given a reservation letter dated 30.03.2011 by OP1 containing terms and conditions and schedule of payments (Annexure-C1). He made a total payment of Rs.45,62,107/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakh Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred and seven only) on different dates in a period of three months, from 29.3.2011 to 27.6.2011 (receipts attached as Annexure-C2). It is his case that while no documents relating to title of the project, sale agreement etc. were provided, making it difficult for him to apply for a loan, OP1 continued to make demands for payment. OP1 vide letter dated 6.7.2012 demanded Rs.1,53,80,730/- in which it was also threatened that failure to pay would entitle the OP to cancel the flat and be at liberty to sell/dispose of to any other person without further recourse to the complainant (Annexure-C4). Per the plaint, complainant made several requests for extension of time, but in vain. Correspondence between the complainant and the OP is at Annexure-C5. Per the plaint, after much persuasion by the complainant, a meeting was held on 27.07.2012 with OP1, wherein it was decided that the complainant shall submit cheques for a total amount of Rs.1,60,00,000/- and thereafter OP1 shall execute an agreement to sell in the complainant’s favour. Accordingly, the complainant submitted six post-dated cheques to the OP vide letter dated 31.07.2012. However, these were returned by vide letter dated 7.8.2018 along with a refund cheque no.307067 of Rs.27,64,276/- (Annexure-C6 colly). The complainant has not encashed this cheque. Faced with this, this consumer complaint was filed on 25.4.2013 seeking essentially setting aside the cancellation letter dated 7.8.2012, and direction to the OP to provide all information and documents of the allotted flat as required under Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA), failing which to allot an alternative flat if the said flat was not available, failing which to refund Rs.45,62,107/- from date of each payment @ 18% per annum till the actual date of payment along with exemplary compensation of Rs.100 lakh and mental agony etc., and costs.
3. This was contested through a written version filed on behalf of the OPs. All the allegations, save those which were a matter of record, were denied. In particular, the complainant was described as a contumacious defaulter, who was an employee of OP1 at the time of his booking the said flat, and who had been afforded a great deal of latitude in making payments under the reservation letter agreement. The present complaint, per the reply, was a misuse of the legal process, without any basis in law or facts, aimed at somehow getting an apartment at favorable terms and conditions. OPs have discharged their contractual obligations in a fair and transparent manner and had gone beyond the letter of the agreement to accommodate the complainant in all manner possible. Howeve
