EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. Vs. LALIT ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short as 'State Commission ') vide its order dated 4.4.2012 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, challenging order dated 21.10.2011 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -1, Chandigarh (for short as 'District Forum ').

(2.) FACTS in brief, are that the respondent/complainant was allotted Plot No.516 measuring 300 Sq. yards in Mohali Hills. Prior to allotment, respondent filled Advance Registration Form, and also enclosed a cheque as basic price @ Rs.10,000/ - per sq. yards + E.D.C., as applicable per sq. yard as per the prevailing rate on allotment of PLC, if applicable. It was stated that the same was accepted by the petitioners/opposite parties. At the time of issuance of allotment letter/Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 20.06.2007, mentioned the rate of plot at Rs.11,500/ - per sq. yard instead of Rs.10,000/ - per sq. yard, which was against the terms and condition of the Advance Registration Form. Respondent approached petitioners number of times, and requested them not to charge the price of the plot @ Rs.11,500/ -. Petitioners assured the respondent that the excess amount, would be adjusted in future installments, but they failed to do so. It was further stated that respondent had deposited Rs.35,21,604/ - against the due installments till 17.03.2009. It was further stated that when respondent visited the project site, it was found, that no development work like roads, sewerage, electricity poles and other basic amenities, had been carried out. As per agreement dated 20.06.2007, the project was to be completed within two years, which period expired on 19.06.2009. It was further stated that neither the possession of the plot was handed over to the respondent by that date, or even thereafter, nor respondent was compensated for the delay in delivering the possession. A legal notice dated 27.01.2011, was served upon the petitioners, but to no avail. The aforesaid acts of the petitioners amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. Accordingly, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), claiming various reliefs, was filed.

(3.) THE District Forum, vide its order dated 21.10.2011, allowed the complaint of the respondent and passed the following order;