P P GAMBHIR Vs. OMAXE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above noted Revision Petitions(R.P. Nos. 861 and 862 of 2017) have been filed by the Petitioners/Complainants against the impugned orders dated 06.12.2016, passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal Nos.124 & 125 of 2014, respectively.

(2.) These Revision Petitions (R.P. Nos.861 and 862 of 2017) have been filed by Petitioners, Mr. P.P. Gambhir and Sanjeev Kumar Gambhir, respectively against the orders dated 06.12.2017 passed in First Appeal Nos.124 and 125 of 2014 respectively. Since the facts of these Revision Petitions are similar, It is proposed to disposed of the same by a common order by taking the Revision Petition No. 861 of 2017 as a lead case.

(3.) Brief facts of the case as per Petitioner/Complainant are that that he had booked a flat in a project to be developed by the Respondent/Opposite Party at Pant Nagar (Rudrapur) Uttarakhand with an approximate super area of 878 sq. ft. and while booking the flat he had adopted the instalment linked plan and had paid Rs.2,17,305/- vide cheque dated 17.08.2006 against a receipt. The Respondent confirmed the allotment of Apartment in Tower No.Volga-B-203, 2nd Floor, Tower Volga having approximate super area of 910 sq. ft. and also annexed the payment plan and advised him to pay the next instalment of Rs.3,12,045/-. The said payment was made by the Petitioner to the Respondent by cheque dated 14.11.2006. It was alleged that in all the petitioner had paid Rs.5,29,345/- for the aforesaid flat, whereas total cost of the flat was Rs.15,01,500/-, which was to be paid in instalments by 17.03.2008. The Petitioner was assured that the construction had started and was to be completed by 31.03.2008 when the possession of the flat would be delivered to the Petitioner on receipt of 5% of the BSP. Subsequently, without the consent of the Petitioner, the Respondent had changed the schedule of construction and payment plan without giving any reason and sent another instalment payment plan dated 28.10.2007, whereby the Petitioner was to make first instalment by 10.11.2007 and subsequent instalment after every two months and last instalment by 10.01.2009 and the remaining 5% was to be paid on an offer of Possession. Further, the revised schedule had adversely affected the whole plan of the Petitioner and he also tried to verify the fact of commencement of construction and had come to know that the same had not yet started. The Respondent also did not give any positive response to the Petitioner when he made a request for refund of the paid amount with interest vide letter dated 24.05.2008. Reminders were also sent but with no result. The Petitioner had sent a legal notice through counsel to which a vague reply was given by the Respondent. Ultimately, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum for refund of the amount alongwith compound interest and also claimed Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.