SHALIMAR ESTATES PVT LTD Vs. RASHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred to as District Forum) and we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum has rightly held that the respondents were entitled to the refund of earnest money deposited by them, which was @ 10% of the sale price. It appears from perusal of the impugned order that the respondents after applying for the allotment of the plot and depositing earnest money @ 10% of the sale price, read some news items appearing in the newspapers, which created doubt in their mind regarding the plots offered for allotment by the appellant Shalimar Estate (P) Limited and they felt dis-interested in pursuing their cases for depositing the balance 15% of the amount within the time provided under Condition (1) (ii), which has been extracted in the impugned judgment and order.

(2.) The District Forum held that there was deficiency on the appellant in forfeiting the amount of earnest money and observed that the Government Housing Organisations like HUDA/puda/chandigarh Housing Board allow the applicants refund of their earnest money even after the allotment of plot/flat but subject to deduction of 10% as processing charges from the earnest money. Consequently, the District Forum allowed the complaint to the extent that the refund of earnest money was directed to be made after deducting 10% amount from the same and along with interest @ 7% per annum from 1.3.2002 till its payment and awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the default was in fact committed by the respondents/complainants who failed to deposit 15% of the sale price as required by Condition No. (1) (ii) within 30 days and even after the extended period of 60 days, which could be granted on the written request by the respondents. Hence, the 10% of earnest money deposited initially was forfeited and the respondents had no claim against such payment subsequently. It was mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that whatever clarifications were sought by the respondents were made by the appellant and the appellant were obliged to take further steps for allotment of plot by making a deposit of 15% of the sale price to make it a total deposit of 25%.