IMPORTANT POINT
Cancellation of allotment of plot – No deficiency in service as no claim for allotment of alternative plot made by Complainant.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member.—This Appeal has been filed by the Complainant against the impugned Order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi directing the Respondents to refund the principal amount to the Complainant along with interest.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that in the year 1997, the Complainant was looking to purchase a residential property in and around Delhi when he was approached by the Opposite Parties/Respondents who offered their services. The Complainant was solicited to purchase Plot No. B-C067 at Golf Links, Greater Noida, initially registered in the name of one Ms. Rajni Bhatia, which was later transferred to Mrs. Geeta Singhal, and subsequently transferred to the Complainant. The changes in the allotment were approved by the Opposite Party No. 1 vide letter dated 09.05.1997. This was followed by an allotment letter dated 04.05.1998, allotting Plot No. 75 in Block B to the Complainant for a total consideration of Rs. 6,46,217.95. The Complainant changed his residential address within New York, United States of America, and informed the Opposite Parties via telephone and a letter dated 26.06.2000. However, the Complainant was not given possession of the plot in Golf Links, Greater Noida, and the allotment was cancelled despite having made payments totalling Rs. 5,95,350.83. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed his Complaint before the Ld. State Commission, Delhi.

3. The Ld. State Commission vide the impugned Order dated 14.03.2018 partially allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party to refund the principal amount deposited to the Complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below –

“…….

17. In that view of the matter the inescapable and inevitable conclusion is that there was a gross deficiency as defined in Section (2(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the part of OP in cancelling the booking of the plot in terms of agreement to sell.

18. The OPs having cancelled the booking of the unit, forfeited the amount relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs. Indian Machinery Co. [RP-1931/2013 decided on 23.02.2017]. The facts of that case however, are not apposite to this case. In that case letter raising the demand was served and the complainant did not make the payment but in the given case the demand letter was not served and thus reliance of the ratio of that judgement for dealing with this case would be misplaced.

19. In the meanwhile, the unit after its cancellation has been sold to one Smt. Sushma and the sale deed to this effect has been executed. Having regard to this restoration of the plot is out of question.

20. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the fact at hand, we are of the opinion, that the complaint deserves to be accepted. Having arrived at the said conclusion, the core question for consideration is as to how the complainants are to be compensated for the monetary loss, mental and physical harassment they have suffered at the hands of OP on account of non-delivery of the allotted flat……..

24. We have given our careful consideration to the subject matter, as also the law laid down by their Lordship. The complainant has prayed for the refund. Physical possession of the plot at this stage having already been sold is out of question.

25. Accordingly we direct the OP to refund the principal amount with simple interest @ 12% per annum. This refund and the interest be paid to the complainant by the OP within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

26. We order accordingly.”

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant has argued that the State Commission ought to have appreciated that the Complainant was entitled to the possession of the subject plot, which ought to h