KUMARI SHILPA GAURI Vs. SANJIVANI HOUSING COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against order dated 4.2.2009, passed in Complaint Case No. 62/ 2008 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called as "District Forum" for short), whereby the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant had booked two units under 'Apna Ghar Yojna' with the O.P. on 31.3.2005. The price of each unit was Rs. 2,31,000. Margin money of Rs. 2,000 per month was to be paid for 24 months for each unit. The complainant had paid margin money for both the units from 21.3.2005 to 17.4.2007. As per averment of the complaint after deposit of margin money the plots were to be allotted in favour of the member and agreement was to be entered into between the parties on payment of Rs. 12,000 for each unit. Rest of the amount of Rs. 1,71,000 was to be paid subsequently on loan or finance basis. It was averred in complaint that plot was not allotted in her favour despite payment of margin money for both the units. Consequently, the complainant sent legal notice to the O.P. but in reply O.P. demanded payment of remaining amount of Rs. 1,83,000 per unit prior to registration of plot. It was averred that the O.P. had violated the terms by not allotting and registering the plots in favour of the complainant and this act on the part of the O.P. amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

(3.) O .P. resisting the complaint admitted that membership Nos. 02619 and 02620 were allotted to the complainant. After deposit of margin money and selection of unit, agreement was to be executed. The complainant did not enter into agreement despite repeated requests. She also changed preference of location. Earlier she preferred location at Daldal Seoni but subsequently she demanded the unit behind Shankracharya Mandir, Abhanpur Road. After this she demanded the unit at Deopuri location hence due to confusion on account of change of location by the complainant units could not be allotted. It was further averred that the decisions of directors of the O.P. were made known to the parties by means of notice on the notice -board; letters sent to parties; intimation on telephone besides publication innewspaper. It was further averred that complainant approached staff as well as directors of O.P. for refund of amount deposited by her and she was required to submit an application in writing. In this regard letter dated 16.1.2008 was also sent to the complainant. She was also told that in case she deposits remaining amount, registration of plots will be done but the complainant failed to co -operate. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the O.P.