MANOHAR KUMAR & ANR. R/O HOUSE NO.763, KUMAR KUNJ SECTOR Vs. M/S. NARANG CONSTRUCTION & FINANCE PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. ARUN RATHEE HEVING REGD. OFFICE AT SD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Smt. Anita Kumari and Sh. Manohar Kumar, booked flat with M/s Narang Construction and Finance Pvt. Ltd. - the OP in this case. They deposited Rs. 8,00,000.00 through cheque dated 15.06.2008. Flat No. 411 in Block H, 4th Floor was allotted to them. The OP again demanded Rs. 5,50,000.00 towards the allotment of the flat. The complainants paid Rs. 2,50,000.00 through cheque and Rs. 3,00,000.00 in cash. The total amount deposited by the complainants was Rs. 13,50,000.00. It was agreed that possession of the flat would be handed over within two years from the date of allotment i.e., in the year 2008. The complaint was filed before the District Forum in Dec. 2012. Till then, the possession was not handed over to the complainants. They requested the OP to accept the balance amount, but it did not ring the bell. In the complaint they prayed that the OP be directed to accept the balance amount in respect of the aforesaid flat, without interest because it had failed to hand over physical possession within two years from the date of allotment and pay a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 for mental harassment etc. and Rs. 22,000.00 as litigation expenses.

(2.) The OP listed the following defenses. The Complainants had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,50,000.00 only. They were required to make further payment for signing agreement papers and issuance of allotment letter. 13 reminders and two telephone calls as detailed in the order of the State Commission were sent but those did not evoke any response from the complainants.

(3.) The District Forum decided the case in favour of the complainants. It directed the OP to accept the balance amount from the complainants without interest because the OP was already utilising the huge amount of Rs. 13,50,000.00 of the complainants. OP was further directed to hand over the same flat or another flat in favour of the complainants. The OP also raised question regarding jurisdiction and objected that the complainants are not the Consumers.