M2K DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. Vs. DEEPTI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order, dated 09.09.2013, in CC No. 61 of 2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short "the State Commission"), Opposite Party No. 1 has preferred this Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed the Complaint and directed the Appellant herein to deliver the possession of Flat No. H -16, FF, Super Area 1720 SFT i.e. 281 sq. yards situated at M2K White House at Sector 57, Mayfield Garden, Gurgaon and in case, the said flat was not available with the Appellant, in that eventuality, to hand over possession of some other alternative flat in the nearby adjoining project, together with compensation and Costs of 5 Lac.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY put, the facts which are material to the case are that: The Appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in development and construction of houses in the name and style of "the White House" in which the Complainant, respondent No. 1 and her husband, respondent No. 2 herein had booked one unit bearing Flat No. H -16, FF, Super Area 1720 SFT i.e. 281 sq. yards in M2K "The White House" at Sector 57, Mayfield Garden, Gurgaon with the Appellant in the proposed site. The Complainant stated that she had paid 5,11,000/ - vide cheque No. 815576 dated 22.01.2008. According to the Complainant, at the time of booking, it was assured by the Appellant that the flat booked was a corner flat. But subsequently, in the month of September 2010, she came to know that this house was not a corner house, but a single sided one.

(3.) THE Appellant addressed a letter dated 09.02.2008 asking the Complainant to pay the balance amount of 5,70,000/ - which was made by her vide cheque No. 623664 dated 08.05.2008. Thus, the Complainant had paid in all an amount of 10,81,530/ -. The grievance of the Complainant was that as per the agreement executed between the parties, the construction of the flat in question was to be completed within 18 months but the Appellant did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. While so, Appellant issued a letter dated 18.07.2009 stating that the unit was booked in joint names and for that reason, the Appellant was unable to initiate any action. On 04.08.2009, the matrimonial case filed by the Respondent No. 2 against the Complainant was resolved having been withdrawn and thereafter, a joint letter dated 06.08.2009 was sent to the developer which was acknowledged by them. Thereafter, no communication was received by the Complainant qua installments. While so, on 04.11.2010, the Appellant issued a letter intimating the Complainant that allotment of the subject flat has been cancelled. Hence the Complainant filed the Complaint bearing No. 8 of 2011 before the State Commission seeking direction to the Appellant Developer to accept the balance payment and register the said flat in her name with compensation and costs. Vide order dated 28.03.2012, the State Commission dismissed the said Complaint in default for want of prosecution as none was present on behalf of the Complainant on the said date. On an Appeal filed by the Complainant, this Commission vide order dated 19.07.2013 remitted the case back to the State Commission to decide the same in accordance with law.