SANJAY TIKU S/O SH. KASHI NATH TIKU, R/O H.NO. 859, EXCEL HOUSING SOCIETY SECTOR 48 Vs. JANTA LAND PROMOTERS LTD. HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 538, PHASE X, SECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") is to the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.685 of 2015 preferred by the Opposite Party. By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the District forum and consequently, dismissed the Complaint.

(2.) The facts material to the Complaint are that the Complainant intended to purchase an apartment and paid Rs. 10,00,000.00 towards advance on 08.11.2013. He was informed that the payment can be made in two plans, namely, Down Payment Plan in which rebate of 7% was allowed on the Basic Sale Price and Construction Linked Payment Plan for which no rebate was allowed. The Complainant averred that the area of the apartment was 3012 sq.ft. @ Rs. 3700.00 per sq. ft. and after the rebate of 7%, the total sale consideration was agreed at Rs. 1,03,64,29 As per the Down Payment Plan, 10% of the Basic Sale Price was to be deposited at the time of booking and he made the payment of Rs. 10,00,000.00 vide cheque dated 08.11.2013. On 16.11.2013, the Complainant received a letter intimating that he was being allotted a 4-BHK Apartment No.C-703, measuring 3012 sq.ft. It was pleaded that the terms and conditions contained in Clause 2 of that allotment letter was completely contradictory to the Down Payment Plan for which he had consented and the 7% rebate, which was offered, did not figure in the letter. It also included an excessive amount of service tax which he was not informed of. The Complainant pleaded that he had refused to accept that letter and only retained a photocopy of it for ready reference.

(3.) The Complainant stated that he had written a letter to the Opposite Party on 06.12.2013 informing that he had deposited Rs. 10,00,000.00 as per the rebate promised to him under Down Payment Plan, for which he received a reply dated 11.02014, which was again contradictory to the letter dated 16.11.2013 and he was asked 85% of the purchase price within 30 days of the initial payment of Rs. 10,00,000.00. It was arbitrary to expect him to accept the allotment letter which was contradictory to the terms and conditions offered to him at the initial stage. The Complainant denies that the booking amount was Rs. 11,14,440.00 and states that there was no objection raised by the Opposite Party when he had deposited the amount of Rs. 10,00,000.00. He had even got a loan approved from HDFC Bank for an amount of Rs. 75,00,000.00 by paying processing fee of Rs. 42,135.00. When the Bank had demanded for the relevant documents in order to release the loan vide letter dated 29.05.2014, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for procuring the said documents and he was informed that at least three months' time was needed to get the said documents prepared. While so, on 17.06.2014, the Opposite Party had cancelled the allotment by sending a letter through registered post and an amount of Rs. 1,28,397/- was refunded vide cheque dated 09.06.2014. It was subsequently pleaded by the complainant that non-payment of the amount cannot be made a ground for cancellation and he had opted for Down Payment Plan and the allotment letter which was sent to him was contradictory to the terms which was offered to him. Mentioning the same, he had replied to the cancellation letter dated 17.06.2014, vide an e-mail dated 01.07.2014 expressing that he was still interested in purchasing the apartment and that he had got approved loan from the Bank for the balance payment. The Opposite Party replied vide e-mail dated 08.07.2014 stating that the documents can be sent only after restoration of the cancellation, for which, the Complainant had to deposit the entire balance amount. The Complainant averred that the Opposite Party had arbitrarily retained Rs. 8,71,603.00 on the basis of company policy which was never binding on him. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the Opposite Party to refund the sum of Rs. 8,71,603.00 and Rs. 42,135.00 paid towards processing charges with interest, compensation and costs.