M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.136 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 25.10.2016 passed in Case.No.225/2016 by District Commission, Gwalior)

1. M/S HEALTHY BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED, 205 GLOBAL APARTMENT, INFRONT OF INCOME TAX OFFICE, CITY CENTRE, GWALIOR.

2. SAI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPER, THROUGH DIRECTOR, 205 GLOBAL APARTMENT, INFRONT OF INCOME TAX OFFICE, CITY CENTRE, GWALIOR. … APPELLANTS.

Versus SMT.SHIV KUMARI, H.NO.C-1, PRASAD NAGAR, SHARMA FARM ROAD, HAZIRA, GWALIOR. .… RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants.

None present for respondent.

O R D E R (Passed on 06.11.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the opposite parties / appellants directed against the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.225/2016, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant / respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) and has directed the opposite parties / appellants, jointly and severally, to refund Rs.6,78,600/- to the complainant within one month with interest 12% p.a. from 22.01.2014, till payment with costs of Rs.1,500/-.

2. Heard. Perused the record

3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties / appellants argued that the complainant had paid only Rs.6,78,600/- by 22.01.2014 and no further amount was paid by her. In the condition no.7 and 9 of the agreement executed between the parties, it is clearly specified that in case of non-payment of installments on time, the booking amount shall be forfeited. The complaint case filed in the year 2016 was also barred by limitation. The complainant was therefore not entitled for refund of the amount, which has been awarded by the District Commission and he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the complaint filed by her be dismissed.

4. We observe that the District Commission while passing the impugned order in favour of the complainant / respondent has made an observation that since the complainant did not deposit entire cost in respect of three houses which were booked i.e. Rs.21,11,400/- she is not entitled to obtain possession of the houses, as she paid Rs.1,97,000/- per house. The complainant has also alleged that the opposite parties / appellants were not having necessary permissions for the purpose of construction. The District Commission accordingly directed for refund of the amount deposited by the complainant / respondent.

5. We also observe that though the complainant had just made initial deposits with the opposite parties / appellants but they have also failed to show that they have tried to complete construction work as per development plan. The opposite parties / appellants have also failed to show that the construction work in respect of the complainant’s houses could not be completed on account of default on her part. No demand notices are available on record, if ever they were sent by the opposite parties / appellants, seeking payment of balance amount. The opposite parties / appellants have also not filed any evidence to show that they had cancelled her allotment due to her being defaulter and had communicated this to her.

6. As regards question of limitation, we observe that the District Commission has rightly concluded that the cause of action will accrue from the proposed date of completion of construction and execution of registered sale deed in the instant matter.

Therefore, the complaint is rightly held to be in limitation by the District Commission.

7. It has rightly been observed by the District Commission that the amount paid by the complainant was being used by the opposite parties / appellants and they were neither completing the constru