SARLA RANI Vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants appellants feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing their complaint alleging deficiency in service filed this appeal. The complaint was filed on the ground that opposite party/respondent have failed to complete the construction of the allotted flat and failed to refund the full amount on demand.

(2.) First, the brief facts. They are as under: The respondent published an advertisement sometimes in April, 1990 in respect of a scheme for allotment of residential flats entitled ˜Sushant Apartments at ˜Sushant Lok, Gurgaon, Haryana. Under the aforesaid scheme, the respondent was to allot residential flats to the appellant herein. There were three categories of flats. The appellant applied for allotment of a flat under 6 years instalment the Plan ˜C scheme with approximate super area of 1500 sq. ft. on the second floor. The first payment was made by the appellant on 8.5.1990 of Rs. 47,000 and the appellants were also given inaugural rebate of Rs.30,000. The total payment of the flat was Rs.8.25,000 out of which a sum of Rs.77,000 (Rs.47,000/0 + Rs.30,000) was credited in May, 1990. The appellants were allotted a flat No. G -204, on the second floor at Sushant Apartment at Sushant Lok, Gurgaon (Haryana). After all the formalities of documentations etc. were over the appellants started making payments for the remaining instalments from July, 1990. By 30.8.1991, the appellants had made payment of Rs. 2,06,250 in all. As per the terms agreed upon, the respondent company was to start the construction work and have the apartments completed within a period of six years and the mode of payment was related to the progress of the construction. After the appellants had made payment about almost 30%, they became anxious to know about the construction work at the site and made a visit to the site in September, 1991. The appellants were disappointed to see that there was no sign of even foundation. The appellants therefore approached the respondent and made certain inquiries about the state of affairs of construction work. But the appellants did not get any satisfactory reply from the respondent company. The respondents were working at the same time on several other projects. The appellants suspected that the respondents did divert the funds of the appellants to some other project and made huge profits by investing crores of rupees received from the buyers of apartments in the various schemes. Ultimately, the appellants withheld the payment of the respondent company for more than three years funds so collected were utilized by the respondent company without any further progress in the implementation of the scheme. The respondent company committed yet another illegal act by cancelling the allotment of the apartment allotted to the appellants vide their letter dated 25.3.1992 after deducting a sum of Rs.74,250 from the account of the appellant and refunded Rs.1,32,000. It is stated by the appellants that the respondent company kept the sum of Rs. 2,06,250 for a period of three years and no credit of interest had been given. Appellants also stated that the respondent company had no right to deduct this amount. On the contrary, the respondents having not stood by their own assurances, they were obliged to return the amount of the appellants with interest for they have utilized the money of the appellants for about three years.

(3.) The opposite party contested the matter inter alia on the ground that the complainant failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, by stopping payment. The complainants are estopped from filing the complaint after accepting the refund of Rs.1,32,000 without protest. They are not consumers. The inaugural discount of Rs.30,000 was to be adjusted at the time of the delivery of possession. The complainants had paid only Rs.1,76,250 excluding the alleged adjustment of Rs.30,000 of inaugural discount.