Case nº Revision Petition No. 2051 of 2013 with I.A. No.3375 of 2013 (Stay Application) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, June 07, 2013 (case 1. DLF Home Developers Limited, 2. Shri Atul Srivastava, S/o Shri H.C. Srivastava Vs 1. Shri Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Ram Chander Lathwal, 2. Shri Rajiv Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh)
| President | Mr. V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | June 07, 2013 |
Order:
Mr. V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member
-
Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act'') against impugned order dated 25.3.2013, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short ''State Commission'').
-
Brief facts are that respondents/complainants booked a residential flat in Express Green Sector MI, Manesar, DLF, New Gurgaon and deposited Rs.Five lacs with the petitioners/O.Ps. According to the agreement dated 4.4.2009, petitioners had to give possession of the flat within a period of 2½ years from the date of agreement. Further, respondents had to pay Rs.48,50,000/- at the rate of Rs.2091.5 per square feet to the petitioners. On 14.10.2008 and 9.2.2009, petitioners issued letters to the respondents to deposit an amount of Rs.4,70,116.40 paise and Rs.8,43,160.50 paise respectively, according to the amended schedule of payment of the petitioners. The respondents issued two cheques amounting to Rs.7,40,000/- as part payment as the petitioners did not obtain the agreement in respect of the said flat in time and due to which, the loan could not be sanctioned in time from the concerned bank. It is further alleged that petitioners, vide letter dated 27.7.2009 cancelled the part payment made by the respondents. Despite issuing legal notice dated 31.10.2009, petitioners have not cancelled the cancellation letter in respect of the said flat. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners.
-
In its written statement, petitioners admit that on deposit of Rs.5 lacs as booking amount, respondents were allotted apartment measuring 1760 sq. ft. alongwith parking space, vide letter of allotment dated 15.9.2008 at basic sale price of Rs.26,81,040/-. In addition to the said amount, respondents had to pay some additional amount as charges for parking space, EDC, IDC, maintenance security, interest on maintenance security and the total amount comes to Rs.49,37,999.99 paise. However, respondents miserably failed to adhere to the payment plan as opted by them. According to clause No.19 of the application for allotment it clearly states that petitioner company would endeavor to complete the construction of the dwelling unit within three years from the date of execution of the agreement. On 2.4.2009, petitioner company informed all the allottees that the payment plan was being changed. The respondents failed to pay any of the complete instalments despite issuing the demand notices and reminders. Petitioner company left with no option but to cancel the allotment of the said apartment on 15.9.2009. The respondents requested the petitioners to restore the property conditionally that they would remit all the overdue payment alongwith delayed interest by 15.9.2009. The respondents sent two cheques of Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.1,90,000/- to the petitioners but the same were returned back with the condition that the property shall only be restored if the respondents made the complete payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.12,89,604/-. Due to non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the application for allotment by the respondents, the flat is cancelled by the petitioners. The amount stands forfeited by the petitioners as per the terms and conditions of the application for allotment. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial