ANANT RAJ LIMITED Vs. HAPPY YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition No.1112 of 2020 challenges the impugned order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur ('the State Commission') dtd. 12/2/2020. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed the First Appeal No. 111/2020 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar ('the District Forum') dtd. 10/12/2019.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Petitioner/OP launched a residential scheme in the year 2012 namely ASHREY at Neemrana Alwar, Rajasthan. The Complainant submitted his application with the Petitioner/OP for booking Flat No. E-328 for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,89,769.00 and deposited Rs.81,500.00 on 9/2/2012. Thereafter, on 19/4/2012 he deposited Rs.85,697.00, on 31/7/2012 a sum of Rs.50,000.00, Rs.50,000.00, Rs.50,000.00, on 28/8/2012, a sum of Rs.18,038,.00 on 6/12/2012, a sum of Rs.50,000.00, Rs.50,000.00, on 14/12/2012, a sum of Rs.8,616.00 and on 20/5/2014, a sum of Rs.1,68,037.00 were deposited. Thus, he paid a total of Rs.6,11,888.00. The Petitioner/OP was to deliver possession of the flat within three years from the date of booking. However, the OP failed to do so. Being aggrieved, he filed a Complaint before the District Forum for refund along with interest and compensation.

(3.) In reply, OP has contended that the Complainant had booked the flat in the year 2012 and the construction progressed as per time fixed. Rather, the complainant had not paid the balance amount. On 13/6/2016, he forwarded an application to OP for allotment of another flat in Block C-316/235 in place of the aforesaid flat. But, he did not deposit the original documents and by concealing these facts, he filed the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service that has been committed by the OP towards the complainant.