ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Vs. INDUDHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 410/2012 Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd Vs. Indu Dhir by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent booked a shop for her own use with OP/petitioners on 6.9.2008 and deposited a sum of Rs.10,71,250/- from 12.9.2008 to 15.1.2009. OP issued allotment letter dated 6.9.2008 and it was also assured that construction would be started immediately and possession would be handed over before December, 2010. As OP did not start the construction till December, 2010, notice dated 5.3.2012 was issued to the OP, but no reply was received. Ultimately, complainant requested OP to refund deposited amount with interest. As amount was not refunded, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that allotment of shop was for commercial purposes; hence, complainant was not a consumer and complaint was not maintainable. It was further submitted that complainant failed to make payment as per given schedule and was defaulter in making payments, complainant was repeatedly requested to make balance payment, but payment was not made. It was further alleged that as per Clause 9 of the agreement, complainant was liable to pay interest @ 21% p.a. on delayed payments and as per Clause 3 & 4 of the allotment letter, OP had right to cancel the allotment in case payment is not made in time. Denying deficiency on the part of OP, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund deposited amount of Rs. 10,71,250/- along with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.,

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.