JASWINDER SINGH Vs. SWASTIK CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the complainants is directed against the order dated 27.3.02 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT, Chandigarh dismissing complaint and simultaneously directing the respondent/opposite party to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 3,23,750 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 23.11.95 to the appellants.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Respondent allotted to the appellants SCO No. 38, Swastik Vihar consisting of ground, first and second floors against the price of Rs.12,95,000. Allotment was communicated vide letter dated 31.5.1994. Appellants paid amount of Rs.3,23,750 representing payment of 25% of the price of the SCO. Balance amount was to be paid in four equal half yearly installments and first installment was to be paid by 30.11.1994. It was alleged that by the letter dated 21.7.2004 the number of installments was reduced from four half yearly to three half yearly. By means of demand draft dated 23.11.1994 the appellants paid the revised amount of the first installment. Second revised installment fell due on 30.5.1995 which the appellants did not pay. Accordingly, the respondent issued notice dated 31.7.1995 to Jaswinder Singh, one of the appellants calling upon him to pay the amount of second installment within 15 days failing which the allotment was to be cancelled. Still the amount of second installment not being paid, the respondent cancelled the allotment and cancellation was communicated by the letter dated 23.11.95 to the appellants. SCO was allotted to other eligible persons, namely R.S. Randhawa, Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi Randhawa and Ms. Z. S. Randhawa who later on transferred it to Abhishek Garg, Smt. Sarla Devi and Madan Lal. It was further alleged that the appellants got the demand drafts prepared dated 9.8.1995 for Rs. 83,750, dated 29.8.1995 for Rs.1,62,500, dated 31.8.1995 for Rs.77,500, dated 6.9.1995 for Rs.83,750, dated 7.9.1995 for Rs.1,62,500 and dated 7.9.1995 for Rs.77,500 in favour of respondent company. However, the managing director of respondent avoided to accept the drafts saying that those be deposited at the time of taking possession of the SCO. It was stated that terms of allotment letter dated 31.5.94 were revised unilaterally to the disadvantage of the appellants by the respondent. In the amended complaint, the appellants sought the setting aside of cancellation of allotment of the said SCO; to hand over possession thereof. In the alternative, to allot another SCO of the same size and area in the same locality constructed upto the level of SCO No. 38 and in the event of non -availability of such a SCO, to pay market price thereof together with interest. Respondent contested the complaint by filing written version. Allotment of SCO No. 38, receipt of Rs.3,23,750 from the appellants, issuance of letters dated 31.5.94 and 21.7.94 and cancellation of allotment on 23.11.95 were not disputed by the respondent. It was, however, denied that the number of installments of the balance amount was reduced from four half yearly to three half yearly unilaterally and the six demand drafts were offered to the managing director of respondent company who allegedly avoided to receive them. It was stated that as the appellants committed default in payment of the revised second installment, the respondent was justified in cancelling the allotment of SCO No. 38 under the terms and conditions of allotment and sale of the SCO.

(3.) THE State Commission returned the finding that the number of installments of the balance amount was not revised unilaterally and the appellants did not offer six demand drafts towards payment of second installment to the managing director of the respondent as alleged.