EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED Vs. ROOPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 6.10.2010 rendered by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant / respondent No. 1 and directed the OPs 2 and 3/appellants to refund the booking amount of Rs. 15.50 lakh to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit and Rs. 10,000 as costs of litigation.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the OPs invited applications for allotment of commercial unit to be constructed by them at Gurgaon. The complainant, being interested, applied for it and paid a sum of Rs. 15.50 lacs vide cheque dated 25.10.2007 as booking amount along with the application form dated 5.11.2007. Subsequently, the complainant changed his mind and requested for refund of the amount vide letter dated 5.2.2008 (C -l). However, the OPs instead of refunding the amount, sent to him allotment letter (C -4), though the project was not viable. The complainant insisted for refund of the amount but despite his several requests through e -mails and legal notice, OPs failed to refund the booking amount. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

(3.) OP -1 in its reply at the outset took preliminary objection that the complainant does not come within the definition of 'consumer' as the dispute related to commercial property. It was admitted that the complainant had applied for allotment of the unit by depositing Rs. 15.50 lacs; signed the terms and conditions and undertook to abide by the payment schedule at the time of filing up the application form. It was pleaded that the complainant himself backed out and sought the refund of the booking amount on the ground of unavoidable circumstances. It was stated that due to the efforts made by OP - 1, OPs 2 and 3 were ready to return the aforesaid amount but the complainant refused to accept the same and demanded more. It was pleaded that the complainant was allotted Unit No. 1008 on the 10th Floor (Commercial Section) in the project of OPs and after issuance of the allotment letter, the complainant could not seek refund of the booking amount. It was averred that as the complainant breached the terms and conditions, therefore, the earnest money stood forfeited. It was admitted that a number of e -mails were exchanged between OPs and the complainant. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.