RAJBEER SINGH Vs. MANAGER, EMAAR MGF LAND LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THAT the Petitioner prefers the instant Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 16/08/2012 passed by the Hon 'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (herein after referred to as, 'State Commission ') in First Appeal No. 265 of 2012 titled as "Rajbeer Singh vs. The Manager, The Emaar MGF Land Ltd. and Anr. ". By the final impugned order dated 16/08/2012 the Hon 'ble State Commission dismissed the Appeal and upheld the order dated 27/06/2012 passed by the Hon 'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -1, UT, Chandigarh ( herein after referred to as, 'District Forum ') in Consumer Complaint No. 130 of 2012. It is submitted that the Hon 'ble State Commission as well as Hon 'ble District Forum dismissed the case without considering the factual as well as legal aspect of the dispute.

(2.) THE Facts in Brief: That the Complainant, booked a residential floor in "The Terraces " at Mohali Hills, in Sector 108, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, and paid a sum of Rs.3 lacs, vide cheque dated 04.09.2008. The OPs, vide communication dated 13.04.2009, Annexure C -1, informed about the provisional allotment of unit No.574/GF, in Mohali Hills, aforesaid. The Complainant was given assurance, by the OPs, that the Scheme would be launched, within one month and construction would start, but they failed to abide by their commitments. The Complainant, sent letters dated 05.10.2009, Annexure C -2 and 30.10.2009 Annexure C -4, to OP No.1, with a request to refund the earnest money of Rs.3 lacs, within 15 days, but all in vain. Ultimately, a legal notice dated 23.12.2009, Annexure C -5, was issued to the OPs, for refund of the amount, but no positive response was received. It was stated by OP that the Complainant was asked to sign the Buyer 's Agreement, failing which, the deposited amount shall stand forfeited, but the Complainant never signed the same and, as such, the terms and conditions were not applicable to him. It was further stated that, by not refunding the earnest money, deposited by the Complainant, the OPs, were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the Complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after to be called as the Act only), was filed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint.