SHALIMAR ESTATE PVT LIMITED Vs. SURINDER KUMAR ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal bearing No.264 of 2000 has been directed against the order dated 1.8.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - I, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-I ). The facts stated briefly are as under.

(2.) The respondent/complainant - Sh. Surinder Kumar Anand, House No.513, Sector 38-A, (Top Floor), Chandigarh deposited Rs.10,800/- in cash on 5.2.1998 towards the earnest money of a 6 marlas plot at Naraingarh (Hrayana) vide Application No.16110 with the appellant - M/s. Shalimar Estate (Pvt.) Limited, Administrative Office, SCO 110 - 111, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. The respondent/complainant was informed of the allotment of plot No.382 vide a letter No. SEPL/98/4563 dated 26.5.1998 whereby he was also requested to deposit the balance of 25% amounting to Rs.16,200/- within 30 days. As per the averments made by the respondent/complainant, he was unable to deposit any more amounts due to personal difficulties and he requested the appellant-Company to refund his earnest money after deducting 10% canecllation charges. Letters dated 20.6.1998, 27.7.1998, 15.8.1998, 20.9.1998 and 22.10.1998 written by the respondent to the appellant - Company requesting them to cancel the allotment and refund the amount have been placed on record. The complainant/respondent has also referred to Rules of Housing Development Authorities like HUDA, PUDA, etc. which normally refund the earnest money after deducting of 5 or maximum 10% and pleaded that even these Agencies do not forfeit the entire money.

(3.) The opposite party in their reply dated 29.9.1998 in the preliminary objections have averred that the complaint is primarily aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the opposite party-Company. The appellant/opposite party has averred that the complaint is not maintainable as it is the respondent/complainant himself who has defaulted in the payment of 15% of the balance amount of 20% within 30 days as stipulated under the rules of allotment. The appellant has further averred that another grace period of 30 days to make the payment with 18% intertest was also granted to the respondent but he failed to make the requisite payment by the above date as well. The appellant/opposite party has justified the forfeiture of the earnest money as the same being according to the Terms and Conditions governing the allotment as given in the brochure of the company. The appellant/opposite party has further averred that the complaint is not maintainable as the complicated questions of law and facts are involved so the Consumer Redressal Agencies are not competent to adjudicate upon such matters.