PRADEEP UPADHYAYA Vs. EMAAR MGF LAND LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN brief, the facts of the case, are that the opposite party launched the project, by the name of Mohali Hills, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab where it propagated to provide residential space and assured high quality of residential complex, in entire Mohali Hills. It was stated that the opposite party showed a rosy picture to the complainant and misled him by repeated advertisements, in the newspapers. It was further stated that it was apprised by the opposite party, that its commercial projects were also coming up in the said vicinity, being promoted by it. It was further stated that the opposite party assured that it had been developing the land as early as in 2006/2007, so it had completed almost all the basic amenities at the project site. It was further stated that on the basis of the representations and assurances, given by the opposite party, the complainant agreed to purchase a residential unit in the said project. It was further stated that the complainant deposited Rs. 10,00,000 as booking amount vide cheque No. 008761 dated 11.4.2011 in respect of the residential unit at Sector 105, Mohali Hills and the opposite party got the application for provisional allotment signed from him on 11.4.2011 itself. It was further stated that the opposite party vide letter dated 3.3.2012 (Annexure C -2) informed the complainant that he had been allotted plot No. 105 -CP -276 -300 measuring 300 sq. yards and the basic price of the same was disclosed as Rs. 75,00,000 along with Rs. 9,37,500 towards the preferential location charges and external development charges of Rs. 3,14,850, totalling Rs. 87,52,350 (as per schedule of payment, Annexure C -3).

(2.) It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant made the following payments, towards the price of plot to the opposite party:

(3.) IT was further stated that the acts of the opposite party in not delivering the actual physical possession, complete in all respects, or refunding the amount along with interest, to the complainant, amounted to deficiency in rendering service, as also, indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to the opposite party, to refund Rs. 83,77,350 along with interest @ 24% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, without deduction of the TDS; pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony besides Rs. 35,000 as cost of litigation or any other relief, which this Commission deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.