EXPERION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PREETI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants filed the instant First Appeal against the Order dtd. 7/6/2024 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh ("State Commission") in CC No. 257 of 2023, wherein the State Commission allowed the Complaint.

(2.) For convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as per position held in the Consumer Complaint.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as per the complaint, are that the OPs are builders/developer/promoters engaged in construction activities. The Complainants were allured by the OPs marketing officials to purchase a flat in the project "Experion Capital" at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, and thus applied for allotment on 25/12/2017. Upon the payment of Rs.5,00,000,.00the Complainant was allotted Flat No.703 on 7th Floor in Tower-2 on 6/1/2018. A provisional allotment letter dtd. 17/3/2018 was issued, followed by execution of Agreement for Sale dtd. 10/7/2018. As per the Agreement, the carpet area was 111.41 Sq Mts and the total sale consideration was Rs.1,13,68,681,.00 payable as per Construction Linked Payment Plan, with possession to be offered on or before 30/11/2022 along with Completion and Occupancy Certificates. It is stated that the Complainants paid a total sum of Rs.1,34,98,422.11 (including TDS), allegedly in excess of the agreed sale consideration. The OPs issued an offer of possession dtd. 5/4/2022 demanding an additional sum of Rs.28,81,524.70, which the Complainants claim was arbitrary. Upon inspection, the project was found incomplete and without promised amenities. Thereafter, OPs cancelled the allotment of the Complainant vide letter dtd. 16/9/2022 for non-payment of the demanded amount and forfeited Rs.29,49,933.00. The Complainants allege that the said cancellation was later admitted to be erroneous by OPs. Under pressure, they paid further amounts in 2023, including maintenance charges, making the total deposited amount Rs.1,34,98,422.11, i.e., Rs.21,29,741.11 in excess of the sale consideration. Despite repeated requests for possession, execution of sale deed and refund of excess amount, the OPs allegedly failed to comply and instead reiterated that the unit stood cancelled.