KAMLESH RAM KARAN DALAL Vs. BPTP LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against Respondents / Opposite Parties challenging the impugned Order dtd. 1/8/2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana, in First Appeal bearing No. 770 of 2016. Vide such Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order dtd. 26/7/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad in Consumer Complaint No. 251/2011.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had booked two bed room Flat of 1170 sq. ft. in the Group Housing Project namely, 'Park Floors' situated in Sector 77, Faridabad, under their Pre-launch Scheme and had deposited Rs.2,00,000.00 vide cheque bearing No. 876251 dtd. 26/7/2008. The Complainant had deposited another sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 on 4/10/2008 vide receipt No. 1400017004 with the Opposite Party No.1. After the draw of lots was held, the Complainant came to know vide letter dtd. 3/1/2009 that her name did not appear in the first draw and Opposite Parties were in the process of second phase of allotment through computerized draw of lots for which the Complainant had to deposit another sum of Rs.3,29,375.00. However, the Complainant being no more being interested in the Flat, wanted refund of Rs.4,00,000.00 along with interest @18% p.a. Consequently, she filed her Complaint bearing No. 404 of 2009 before the Ld. District Forum, Faridabad. During the pendency of the said Complaint, the Opposite Party entered into an MOU dtd. 10/8/2009 wherein it admitted the claim of the Complainant and agreed to adjust/ transfer the sum paid of Rs.4,00,000.00towards the application for allotment of another Flat/new Unit measuring approx. 1128 sq. ft. in another 'Park Elite Premium Housing Complex' at Park Land Faridabad, Haryana in Sector -85, Faridabad. The Complainant also deposited an additional sum of Rs.50,000.00 vide cheque No.096730 dtd. 3/7/2009 along with application for allotment of the new Unit. Despite the said MOU, Opposite Parties were dilliy-dallying the allotment of new Unit. Consequently, a Legal Notice dtd. 5/5/2011 was issued on the Opposite Party to issue new allotment letter, after which the Complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking issuance of the new allotment letter in respect of allotment of the new Unit, damages of Rs.1,00,000.00 and Rs.11,000.00 as litigation expenses.

(3.) The Opposite Party No.1 appeared before the District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended that the present complaint is not maintainable as it was filed during the pendency of earlier filed Consumer Complaint against the Opposite Party on exactly the same grounds (being Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 2009) which was later withdrawn by the Complainant as late as on 30/1/2014 without seeking liberty from the Forum to continue with the second similar complaint. The Complainant based its second complaint on the MOU on the premise that same has been executed by the Opposite Party. However, the same is false as it is also evident from perusal of the MOU that the same does not even bear any signature of the Opposite Party. It was stated that the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party after filing of the first Complaint with a request for settlement of the matter by adjusting the sum paid towards the new allotment and it was also agreed between the parties that as per the terms of settlement, the Complainant would also withdraw the first Complaint. However, the Complainant, despite herself requesting the settlement, backed out of her commitment and did not execute the MOU and hence, the settlement talks broke down. Consequently, the Opposite Party had sent Demand Letters asking for payments, and the Complainant again defaulted in making such payments. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.