EMAAR MGF LAND LTD Vs. NEERAJ MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in First Appeal No.215 of 2010 namely Mr. Neeraj Malik booked, with the appellant -company, apartment No.55 in Core -2 of a project titled the Excelsior, Boulder Hills, Golf and Country Club at Hyderabad and paid the booking amount of Rs.9,52,460/ - on 17 -03 -2008 followed by a further payment of Rs.19,04,920/ - vide cheque dated 01 -04 -2008. Vide letters dated 03 -05 -2008, 12 -05 -2008 and 17 -06 -2008 the appellant -company informed the complainant that he had not paid the balance booking amount of Rs.9,52,460/ - and requested him to pay the aforesaid amount. Vide letter dated 12 -07 -2008 the complainant informed the appellant -company that the flat was anti vastu and his intention was to purchase a villa. The appellant -company was requested to cancel the flat and refund the money deposited by him along with bank interest. The appellant -company, however, deducted an amount of Rs.19,04,920/ -, that being 10% of the sale price of the apartment from the amount which the complainant had deposited with it and was ready to refund the balance amount, when the complainant approached the State Commission by way of a complaint seeking the following reliefs: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_96_LAWS(NCD)10_20141.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE complainant in First Appeal No.216 of 2010 namely Mr. Rajesh Malik also booked an apartment in the aforesaid project of the appellant -company, for a total consideration of Rs.1,92,53,441/ - and paid an amount of Rs.9,62,673/ - followed by a payment of Rs.19,25,344/ - vide cheque dated 01 -04 -2008. He also was issued demand letters on the lines of the letters sent to the complainant in First Appeal No.215 of 2010. He also requested the appellant -company to cancel the booking on the same ground i.e. the flat not being vastu compliant and his intention being to purchase a villa instead of an apartment. In his case also the appellant -company was ready to refund the balance amount after deducting 10% of the sale price from the amount paid by him and he also approached the State Commission with identical prayers.

(3.) THE complaints were opposed by the appellant -company inter alia on the ground that in terms of clause 7 of the terms and conditions agreed by the complainants, they were entitled to forfeit 10% of the sale price from the amount which they had deposited and, therefore, there was no deficiency in services they had provided to the complainants.