IMPORTANT POINT
Flat Buyer’s Agreement – Only a ‘reasonable amount’ can be forfeited by Opposite Party which cannot exceed 10% of total sale price of unit, in case of delay in payment by Buyer.

JUDGMENT

Brief facts of the case are that in the month of August 2013, the representatives of the Opposite Party approached the Complainant and stated that the Opposite Party is going to construct the residential flats in its project, namely, ‘Terra Heritage’ at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. Being lured by the representations made by the Opposite Party, the Complainant vide ‘Application Form dated 06.08.2013 (Annexure-A Page 22 & 23 of complaint) had booked the 2BHK flat bearing no. D-801 admeasuring 1150 sq. ft. in the aforesaid project of the Opposite Party. As per the Application Form, the basic sale price of the flat was Rs.27,28,320.

2. It is the case of Complainant that at the time of booking, the Opposite Party assured the Complainant that the project would be completed within 36 months from the date of agreement and if, in any case, the Opposite Party failed to handover the possession within 36 months, then the Opposite Party would refund the entire money along with 24% interest. The Opposite Party further stated that if the Complainant cancels the booking then the Opposite Party would be entitled to deduct 10% of the amount paid by the Complainant. On the said term, the Complainant entered into an agreement with Opposite Party and executed a Provisional Registration for Allotment Agreement dated 06.08.2013 and paid an amount of Rs.2,81,263/- as booking amount to the representatives of Opposite Party at his residence. When the Complainant demanded a copy of said agreement from them, they did not provide the copy of the same to him by saying that they were not having the spare copy of the same. The Complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.8,43,788 to the Opposite Party till 29.01.2014.

3. It is the further case of Complainant that on 01.05.2015 the Complainant visited the project site, wherein he found that the Project was not in progress and was left abandoned and there was no hope that the Opposite Party would complete it within the agreed time. The Complainant was in financial crunch and was not in condition of making the full payment of flat. At the time of booking, the Complainant anticipated that the project would be completed in the agreed time and he would earn rental income from the said flat. Since there was no hope that the Opposite Party would complete the project within the agreed time, the Complainant sent a letter dated 21.05.2015 and sought refund of his entire money. But, the Opposite Party declined the request of Complainant vide letter dated 23.05.2015 and advised him to meet the Vice-President of the Opposite Party. Thus, the Complainant met with Vice-President of Opposite Party, who assured that the amount would be refunded after deduction of 10% of amount paid, but nothing was done.

4. It is the further case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party to create undue pressure and harass the Complainant repeatedly sent demand letters for charging interest and penalty from the Complainant. The Complainant again sent email dated 25.08.2015 to the Opposite Party and reminded that he wanted refund of his entire money. However, the Opposite Party telephonically informed the Complainant that the amount would be refunded after deduction of 10% of basic sale price. The Complainant was shocked by hearing such terms and conditions of the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the Complainant vide email dated 27.08.2015 asked the Opposite Party to provide copy of the agreement wherein such terms and conditions were stipulated. Thereafter, the Opposite Party vide email dated 31.08.2015 provided the copy of Provisional Registration for Allotment Agreement dated 06.08.2013. On perusal of the said agreement, the Complainant was shocked to see that if he cancels the booking before allotment, then 10% of basic amount would be deducted and if he cancels the booking after allotment then 20% basic amount would be deducted.

5. It is the further case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party had misrepresented the facts and cheated him at the ti