The contractual obligations bind both parties, and any modification of the agreement must be supported by valid reasoning to avoid consumer detriment.

ORDER

PER BHARATKUMAR PA ND YA. MEMBER

1.The revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order of the State Commission, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/OPs was partly allowed and order of the District Forum was modified. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that the petitioner who was looking for a suitable accommodation contacted the respondents, who were constructing the flats in Neha Saloni Apartments, Solapur. Petitioner paid an advance booking amount of Rs.30,000/- to the respondents and the total sale consideration of the flat was fixed at Rs. 15 lakhs. Petitioner informed the respondent that he will be taking the housing loan and accordingly approached HDFC bank on 13.08.2010 for the same and a housing loan of Rs. 12 lakhs was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Respondents demanded balance amount of Rs.3 lakhs from the petitioner. Petitioner also issued three cheques of Rs. 1 lakh each in the name of the respondents. The same were duly encashed by the respondents towards part payment of the flat. After depositing the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- to the respondents, petitioner requested them to prepare the sale deed and the balance amount of Rs. 11,70,000/- shall be paid to them by way of DD against the said loan amount. The petitioner waited for the same, but no date was given to the petitioner. On 28.10.2010, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, a public notice was issued in a local daily newspaper by the respondents stating that they never issued any allotment letter of flat no. 7 to the petitioner. Petitioner also got issued a counter reply to the said public notice on 31.10.2010 stating that the flat had been purchased by them. Petitioner also made complaint to the Commissioner of Police on 25.10.2010 about the cheating, misrepresentation and breach of trust by the respondents and the said complaint was duly acknowledged by the local police. Being aggrieved by deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, petitioner filed a complaint case before the District Forum. The District Forum, after hearing the arguments of the parties and after perusal of the documents on record, passed the order in favour of the petitioner, directing the respondents to get the sale deed registered in favour of the petitioner and give physical possession to the petitioner after receiving the balance amount i.e. 12 lakhs to the respondents. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.09.2012 passed by the District Forum, Solapur is reproduced below:CBA

“(3.1) In the dispute, Written Statement has been submitted as their reply to the petition on behalf of the opposite party. In that they have blamed the complainant by complaining that the said complaint is false, mischievous and filed with an intention to mislead the Court. It is wrong too. Rs. 30,000.00 has not been procured by the opposite party members from the said complainant. Only 3 Cheques each of Rs. 1,00,000.00 face value were received by the opponents from the said complainant. Due to frequent requests made to them by the complainant as they have encashed these 3 cheques and as these three cheques have been said to have been returned back to the complainant, due to which no amount has been received in cash from the complainant by the opposite party. The opponents have returned the cheques in exchange of allotment Letter back. Only then, the flat has been made open for sale to other customers. But by deliberately concealing all these, the complainant has issued a mischievous notice which got published in the newspaper in a wrong manner. The complainant has received a letter from HDFC Bank of allotment of loan on date 22.10.2010. But it is false, because no such thing has ever transpired at al