V P GUPTA Vs. SWASTIK CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Shri V. P. Gupta has filed this appeal against order dated 27.5.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No.90 of 2000.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the complaint are that the respondent No.1 M/s. Swastik Construction, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 advertised a scheme regarding the sale of flats at Shivalik Vihar, Phase-3, Mansa Devi Complex. Panchkula. The advertisement appeared in the daily newspaper "the Tribune". The complainant duly perused the layout plan of the scheme and contacted the Project Manager of M/s. Swastik Construction who has been impleaded as O. P. No.2 in the complaint case on 24.5.1998 and applied for booking a flat on the ground floor No. Al-13 with one car garage and servant quarter under A2-32. The car garage and the servant quarter were just behind the flat No. Al-13 and it was confirmed by Shri Ravi Thakur, the Project Manager - O. P. /respondent No.2. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- as an advance money along with requisite form and later on deposited another amount of Rs.65,000/- on 27.5.1998 bringing the total amount deposited to Rs.90,000/-. The receipts were duly issued and have been placed on record as Annexures C-1 and C-2. Later on, he was informed by the Project Manager aforesaid that there was a change in the Scheme and the portion under A2-32 were car garage and servant quarters had been converted as ground floor flats. This led the complainant to reconsider the matter regarding the booking of the aforesaid flat and he demanded refund of the amount deposited of Rs.90,000/- with interest but the same was not made, hence, the complaint was filed.

(3.) The complainant claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the amount deposited by him i. e. Rs.90,000/-. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs and assessed conpensation at a sum of Rs.20,000/-. He also claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.