UMESH CHANDRA RASTOGI Vs. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners against order dtd. 30/5/2017 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.746/2014.

(2.) The case of the Petitioners/Complainants is that they booked an office spaces with the Respondent/Opposite Party in the project "the Byron" in Gurgaon by paying full consideration of Rs.15,00,000.00, vide MOU dtd. 12/6/2013. As the Complainant was living in New Zealand, he submitted the filled form through the broker. The broker had made error in the form by mentioning that 50% amount had been paid instead of 100% payment. It was also wrongly mentioned in the form that the Complainants had booked two office spaces. After returning from New Zealand the Complainant got the error rectified and withdrew the earlier MOU and a new MOU was signed. Possession was to be given within two years. As per the MOU, the Opposite Party was to pay assured return of 12% to the persons, who made 100% payment and 11% return to persons who made part payment. As per MOU, the Opposite Party paid 11% return instead of 12%. Due to delay in delivery of possession, the Complainants requested the Opposite Party to refund the amount with interest. The Opposite Party informed the Complainants that they would refund the amount within two months, which they failed to do. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, Complainant No.1 filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum with following prayer: -

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing the written statement on the ground that the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also stated that the dispute arose out of MOU dtd. 5/6/2012, which was amenable to arbitration clause 27 of the MOU. The Consumer Complaint was, therefore, not maintainable.