MACRITECH DEVELOPERS LTD. Vs. A. SYAMALA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by Macrotech Developers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "builder company") assailing the order dtd. 26/10/2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in complaint no. 36 of 2015 whereby the complaint was partly allowed.

(2.) There is a delay of 121 days in filing the present appeal.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') applied for Villa no. 600, 4 BHK on the 6th floor of the Bellezza Benicia project by Lodha Healthy Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd., for a total consideration of Rs.2,28,38,517.00. On 25/4/2011, the complainant paid Rs.4,50,000.00 by cheque to secure the allotment. The application forms issued by the builder company, including the complainant, specified a payment schedule linked to construction progress. The builder company promised to complete the construction on or before 30/6/2013 but pressured the complainant to make payments without commencing construction and under the compelling circumstances, the complainant paid Rs.50.00 lakhs by cheque dtd. 10/8/2011. In all, the complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.54,50,000.00. It is alleged that the builder company sent a draft agreement of sale on 19/9/2011, which the complainant found objectionable due to unreasonable conditions in clauses 7, 8, 11, 14, 23 to 30, 36, 38, and 44 and sought modifications. Despite repeated requests for amendments, the builder company did not accommodate her concerns, which amounted to unfair trade practice. On 22/12/2011, the complainant informed builder company that without a signed agreement of sale, there is no binding contract and hence, she had no obligation to make further payments. The builder company replied on 16/3/2012 ignoring her requests for clause modifications. On 25/10/2011, the builder company emailed to the complainant stating that only typographical errors would be corrected, refusing further modifications. On 22/12/2011, the complainant notified the builder company of her decision not to proceed with the purchase and requested for refund of the deposited amount. Despite several demands for a refund, the builder company unilaterally deducted Rs.29,72,000.00 from the amount (Rs.54,50,000.00) paid by the complainant and refunded only Rs.24,78,388.00. The complainant asserts that the actions of the opposite parties were illegal and the entire project violated several Acts including the A.P. Housing Board, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, AP Land Revenue Act, and A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 and the deduction of Rs.29,72,000.00 under Clause 7 of the allotment letter is contested as unlawful.