IN THE MATTER OF

1. Sh. Mritunjay Prasad Singh

S/o Sh. Sita Ram Singh

2. Smt. Mamta Singh

W/o Sh. Mritunjay Prasad Singh

Both Resident of:

Flat No. 136, DDA SFS Flats,

Sector-1, Pocket-2,

Dwarka, New Delhi-110075

(Through: Complainants in person)

.....Complainants

VERSUS

1. M/s Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Registered Office:

B-98, Abul Fazal Apartment,

22, Vasundhra Enclave, Delhi-110096

Corporate Office:

Samiah House, A-35,

Sector-63, Noida

.....Opposite Party No. 1

2. Sh. Jamil A. Khan (Managing Director)

M/s Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd.

.....Opposite Party No. 2

3. Sh. Khatib Ahmed Khan (Director)

M/s Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd.

.....Opposite Party No. 3

4. Sh. Kailash Kumar (Director)

M/s Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd.

.....Opposite Party No. 4

5. Sh. Sagir Khan (Director)

M/s Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd.

.....Opposite Party No. 5

6. Sh. Tariq Hashan (Marketing Executive)

M/s Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd.

.....Opposite Party No. 6

(Through: Mr. Asghar Khan, Advocate)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: None for Complainants

None for Opposite Parties.

PER: HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of the case are that the Opposite Party No. 1 is a promoter-developer and builder company and is engaged in building construction projects across various locations including Noida, Greater Noida, Delhi, Haryana, Nainital, Rudrapur, Hapur, U.P. & Uttaranchal. The Opposite Party No. 2 to 5 are its Directors and Authorized Signatory and the Opposite Party No. 6 is Marketing Executive of Opposite Party No. 1. The Opposite Party No. 1 published the advertisement for the sale of its units under the project namely, ‘NRI Lake City’ Rudrapur. On 29.10.2009, the Opposite Party No. 6 came to the house of Complainant at Saket and provided the brochures, plans, designs and leaflets for the abovesaid project. After negotiation with the Complainant, the Opposite Party No. 6 calculated the total cost of flat as Rs.10,61,100/-. The Complainants told the Opposite Party No. 6 that they would confirm the booking only if the bank loan was sanctioned. The Opposite Party No. 6 assured the Complainants that the project would be approved by the banks very soon. The Opposite Party No. 6 also informed the Complainants that the booking amount would be refundable in case the intended booking is cancelled by the Complainants. Thus, the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 1 vide receipt bearing no. 1793 dated 31.10.2009 (Page 29 of complaint), towards the booking amount towards Kalindi Type flat admeasuring 955 sq. ft. in the aforesaid project of the Opposite Parties. But, no flat was allotted to them at that point of time. It was also assured to the Complainants that they would have roof rights and could make alterations as per their choice.

2. It is the case of Complainants that they were told that they would have to pay 25% of the total cost of flat, which would be allotted to them at the time of booking and balance of Rs.2,60,394/- would be paid by them for confirmation of booking. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties issued demand letter dated 07.12.2009 to Complainants and asked for deposit of balance amount of flat i.e. Rs.2,60,394/- for confirmation/allotment of unit. Thereafter, the Complainants informed the Opposite Parties that they had not yet decided to confirm the booking as they had been facing difficulty in obtaining the loan from bank as their project was not approved by Bank. But, the Opposite Parties sent another demand letter dated 09.01.2010 for a sum of Rs.2,64,246/- along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. Thereafter, the Complainants again told the Opposite Parties that their project was not approved by the bank and therefore, they had not decided to book the flat. The Opposite Parties again issued demand letter dated 05.02.2010 to Complainants to pa