A consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service for failure to allot a flat is unsustainable in the absence of a concluded and enforceable contract, evidenced by signed documentation or a clear allotment agreement.

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This appeal has been directed against judgment and order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 401 of 2014 styled as Sh. Gagandeep Arora & Anr. Vs. Sh. Suneet Pratap Singh and Ors., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the opposite parties to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants in respect of Flat Nos. 14 & 15 Sector 75A, Noida after receiving the entire consideration amount as per agreement as well as to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses to the complainants.

2. Brief facts of the case are such that the complainants intended to purchase a residential flat in Delhi NCR region for their personal use. They approached opposite party No. 1, who was stated to be authorised agent of opposite party No. 3 regarding the booking of flat of their project proposed to be developed at Flat Nos. 14 & 15 Sector 75A Noida. Opposite parties represented that the property would be allotted at a fixed rate and relying upon such representations, the complainants initially deposited a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs on dated 21.10.2011 as booking amount through two cheques of Rs. 2,50,000/- each. The said amount was deposited with opposite party No. 3 through its agent. Subsequently, on demand of opposite party No. 3, the complainants deposited an additional amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-, thereby making total payment of Rs. 8,50,000/-. According to the complainants, despite accepting the aforesaid amount and assuring the allotment of Flat in question, the opposite party No. 3 later refunded the deposited amount without their consent and ultimately refused to allot the promised flat. Since the complainants were still interested in purchasing the flat, they again met with the representatives of opposite party No.3 and on 04.05.2013 re-deposited the refunded amount of Rs.8,50,000/- into the account of opposite party No.3. It was also pleaded that when complainants approached opposite parties to ascertain the status of the project, opposite party No.3 declined to provide them with the promised flat. It was further alleged that at the time of accepting the booking amount, the opposite party No. 3 neither owned or possessed valid rights in respect of land in question. The complainants have alleged that an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- deposited by them was wrongfully utilized by opposite party No. 3. It is further alleged that when the complainants requested copies of documents, receipts and other records pertaining to the booking of flat, opposite party No. 3 instead of furnishing the same, refunded the amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- on 19.04.2014. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainants filed a complaint before the District Commission case seeking execution of sale-deed in their favour and compensation for mental agony as well as litigation expenses.

3. No written statement has been filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, hence after closing the opportunity to file written statement, the complaint case was heard ex-parte against the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.

4. Opposite party No. 3 has filed its written statement contesting the complaint and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts. It is pleaded that the District Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction t