LANDMARK APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. Vs. SUBE SINGH GOYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') challenges order dtd. 14/5/2019 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula directing the appellant to refund the principal amount received from the respondent along with interest @ 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realization, along with Rs.50,000.00 as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.20,000.00 towards litigation expenses. The appellant has prayed that this Commission:-

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that on 10/7/2012, the respondents booked a 2BHK flat admeasuring 1350 sq.ft. super area for Rs.55,72,800.00 excluding charges towards car parking and EDC/IDC charges as per a construction linked plan. A sum of Rs.3,00,000.00 was awarded and an application form was signed by the respondents. As per clause 21 of this document, it was stated that time is of essence and a payment schedule prescribed. Since the respondents defaulted in making payments several reminders/demand notices were issued by the appellant including a final reminder/cancellation letter dtd. 20/9/2012 followed by demand notices dtd. 8/1/2013, 15/1/2013 and 12/3/2013. On 8/4/2013 an indemnity bond was submitted by one Mr. Rakesh Kumar on behalf of the respondents. On 1/6/2013, the respondents paid a further amount of Rs.3,83,535.00 as per the demand notice dtd. 8/4/2013. However, in view of continued default and despite notices dtd. 15/10/2013, 22/5/2014 and 23/5/2013 to the changed address of the respondents, a cancellation letter was issued on 25/6/2014 by the appellant. Thereafter, another cancellation letter was issued on 3/11/2017 by the appellant, to which the respondents did not respond. A consumer complaint no.177 of 2018 was, therefore, filed before the State Commission.

(3.) This order dtd. 14/5/2019 of the State Commission is assailed on the grounds that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the respondents were habitually defaulting in making payments as per the payment schedule agreed and were therefore guilty of violating the terms of the contract.