DWARKADHIS PROJECTS PVT LTD Vs. SUSHILA KATARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are seven revision petitions filed by Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd. against seven orders of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in seven different appeals. All seven matters pertain to consumer complaints filed against the petitioner/Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd. All seven complaints were filed before the District Forum on 10.8.2010. All these matters pertain to the same project and nearly identical facts and issues are involved. Therefore, they have being taken up for disposal together. For the purposes of discussion, the facts as emanating from the matter in RP No.3558 of 2011 against the order of the State Commission in Appeal No, 1268/2011 are referred to.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondents/Complainants had applied for allotment of flats in the Project announced by the revision petitioner/OP at village Garhi Alawalpur Dharuhera District Rewari. Haryana. The first payment of Rs.1.5 lakhs was made through a cheque, dated 16.1.2007. This was followed by several other payments leading to total payment of Rs.5.07 lakhs. Despite receiving this amount, no flat was allotted nor was any agreement signed by the OP/ Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, a consumer complaint was filed on 10.8.2010 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rewari. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that the project, itself was not approved by the Government. The proposed outer road of 75 feet width, was not constructed. At the time of booking, the Complainant was told that the Project will be ready in .30 months, but no flat was delivered till the date of the complaint. Even allotment was not made, as promised. No Government approvals had been received for the Project, despite assurance that all necessary licences had been received at the time of inviting applications and receiving monies from the Complainant and other applicants.

(3.) Payment of Rs.5.07 lakhs was not denied by the petitioner/OP before the District Forum. Assurance of delivery of possession within 30 months was also not denied. However, it was claimed that this period of 30 months was meant to be from the date of commencement of construction. The response of the revision petitioner/OP before the District Forum was that the Project was in progress. It was contended that due to global recession and its impact on real estate market, the Complainant suspected that his investment will not grow as anticipated Therefore, refund was sought by him.