ORDER

1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners against order dated 30.05.2017 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.746/2014.

2.       The case of the Petitioners/Complainants is that they booked an office spaces with the Respondent/Opposite Party in the project “the Byron” in Gurgaon by paying full consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-, vide MOU dated 12.06.2013. As the Complainant was living in New Zealand, he submitted the filled form through the broker. The broker had made error in the form by mentioning that 50% amount had been paid instead of 100% payment. It was also wrongly mentioned in the form that the Complainants had booked two office spaces. After returning from New Zealand the Complainant got the error rectified and withdrew the earlier MOU and a new MOU was signed. Possession was to be given within two years. As per the MOU, the Opposite Party was to pay assured return of 12% to the persons, who made 100% payment and 11% return to persons who made part payment. As per MOU, the Opposite Party paid 11% return instead of 12%. Due to delay in delivery of possession, the Complainants requested the Opposite Party to refund the amount with interest. The Opposite Party informed the Complainants that they would refund the amount within two months, which they failed to do. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, Complainant No.1 filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum with following prayer: -

“i)     direct the opposite parties to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the Complainant;

ii)      direct the opposite parties to make up for the mistake by immediately refunding the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- paid for the booking of the plot plus unpaid accrued assured returns w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to the date of settlement AND necessary documentation showing the time when they deposited the S. Tax of Rs.39000 taken from the Complainant as to facilitate plus differential of 1% assured return - paid 11% due 12% as paid to others- at the earliest; The total till July 2013 end will be Rs.1500000 + Rs.12375 after TDS x 4 = 49500 assured returns @ 11% + Rs.21375 by way of differential between 12% due and 11% paid = Total Rs.15,70,875, till July 2013 + S.T.39 K.

iii)     direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.200000/- as damages towards the stress, efforts on containing mental agony suffered by the Complainant; and

iv)      direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of this petition;

v)       kindly settle the matter latest by end of October, 2013 AS THE COMPLAINANT HAS TO TRAVEL TO NEW ZEALAND BY 1^ST WEEK OF NOV. 2013 FOR 6-7 MONTHS, A TIME STIPULATION NECESSARY FOR HIS IMPENDING I.P. Residency there.

vi)      pass any such orders and reliefs deemed fit and proper for this Hon’ble Forum in view of the facts and circumstances of this case.”

3.       The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing the written statement on the ground that the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also stated that the dispute arose out of MOU dated 05.06.2012, which was amenable to arbitration clause 27 of the MOU. The Consumer Complaint was, therefore, not maintainable.

4.       On merits, it was stated that the office space was booked in the name of the Complainant and his wife. The Opposite Party denied that 12% return was payable to the persons who made full payment. As per clause 4 of MOU, the Complainant was entitled to assured return of Rs.55/- per square feet per month, after TDS deduction, which amounted to Rs.12,375/- per month. The Opposite Party was making the said payment as per entitlement of the Complainant. In the letter dated 12.06.2013 the Complainants had stated that they wanted to cancel the allotment “due to some unavoidable circumstances” and not due to delay in delivery of possession.

5.       After