1.       This Revision Petition by a Real Estate Developer, namely, M/s Janta Land Promoters Pvt. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 09.01.2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 873 of 2016.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 24.10.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 13 of 2015.  By the said order, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the Petitioner herein in deducting 10% of the total amount of ₹40,41,519/-, deposited by the Complainant as far back as in the year 2012, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to refund the amount so deducted, i.e. ₹14,30,029/-, along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 17.12.2013 till actual payment and also pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to him, along with costs, quantified at ₹5,000/-. 

2.       In support of the present Revision Petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously urged that the aforesaid direction by the Fora below being in the teeth of Clauses 2.24 and 2.9 of the allotment letter, which stipulate that the construction of the apartment allotted to the Complainant was ‘likely’ to be completed within a period of 30 months from the date of issue of allotment letter, which shall be subject to force majeure and circumstances beyond the control of the Developers and that the said period shall not be counted towards the said period of 30 months, is illegal and deserves to be set aside.  According to the learned Counsel, although the possession of the subject flat was expected to be delivered to the Complainant within a period of 30 months, i.e. by 16.07.2015, but the period, so fixed, was tentative and could be extended if there were some circumstances beyond the control of the Petitioner, like in the present case, viz. dewatering of the soil having been delayed on account of high sub soil water.  It is also contended that even otherwise, the Complainant could not ask for refund of the amount deposited by him when even the afore-noted stipulated date had not arrived.  It is also argued that the order impugned in this Revision Petition otherwise suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, inasmuch as the State Commission has dismissed Petitioner’s Appeal in limine without even issuing notice to the Complainant.

3.       Having heard learned Counsel for some time and perused the documents on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with any of the contentions urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

4.       Specifically dealing with the question of scope and purport of the afore-noted Clauses, in the letter of allotment, as also the plea regarding the applicability of the force majeure clause as well as the afore-noted exceptional circumstance, the State Commission has observed as follows:

“However, according to clause 2.24 OP was required to complete the apartment within a period of 30 months subject to force majeure.  In force majeure, OP has stated that due to high level of sub soil water which took time to dewatering, the construction was delayed for three months but on the record OP has failed to place any evidence to support it, therefore, this plea taken by OP is without support of any evidence on record.  No doubt that in case, the project is delayed, the OP was under obligation to pay compensation @ Rs.10 per sq. ft. per month but here OP had revised its own schedule given by them in the allotment letter by another letter dated 8.5.2013 (Ex. C-3) and as per their letter dated 07.11.2013 (Ex. C-4) the basement roof slab was completed in the month of November, 2013.  OP did not stick even to the revised plan according to which, the completion of basement roof slab was 31.05.2013.  Firstly OP unilaterally changed the payment/construction plan which is not permissible under the terms and conditions given in the allotment letter as during the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant/OP was unable to refer any clause under which OP can change the terms and conditions of their own and then they did not stick to their own payment/construction schedule which prompted the complainant to go for refund as project was not likely to be completed within time period offered by OP.  In view of the high price of the apartment, Rs.10 per sq. ft. may not be an appropriate return.  In case of OP would not have changed the payment/construction plan of their own, and that the complainant had already accepted the allotment letter and had paid a sum of Rs.40,41,519/- to OP but opted to get its refund only when OP changed their payment/construction plan of its own and that there is delay in completion of first stage of the construction.  In these circumstances deductions of 10% from the amount deposited is not justified according to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter referred above.  We are of the opinion that the District Forum has properly appreciated the fact on record and its findings are correct.”  (Emphasis added)

5.       We are in complete agreement with the afore-extracted observations by the lower Fora.  Admittedly, on the date when the Complainant had prayed for cancellation of the allotment and refund of the amounts already deposited by him, the construction at the project site was not as per the Schedule, fixed in the letter of allotment itself.  It is not in dispute that the Complainant had been allotted a flat on the 13^th floor of the building, christened as “Falcon View Apartments”, situated in Sector 66-A, Mohali, and the possession of the said flat was to be delivered to him by 16.07.2015 but as late as in 2015, the building had come up only up-to the 11^th floor.  The plea that in view of the stipulation in Clause 2.9, entitling the Petitioner to deduct 10% of the amount deposited along with brokerage charges in the event of the allottee refusing to accept the allotment, is stated to be rejected for the simple reason that by the stipulated date of delivery of possession, no offer of possession had admittedly been made to the Complainant.  We are amazed at the stand of the Petitioner that despite having noticed tardy progress in construction of the project, the Complainant ought to have waited for the due date for delivery of possession.  Admittedly, the construction in the project was not progressing as per the fixed Schedule and, therefore, the Complainant was not expected to wait for an indefinite period to get the possession of the flat and in the meanwhile go on making further payments to the Petitioner in terms of the Schedule.  

6.       Insofar as the afore-noted legal question relating to non-application of mind by the First Appellate Authority is concerned, having carefully perused the order impugned in this Revision Petition, we are of the view that there is no substance in the said plea as well, inasmuch as the State Commission has reappraised the entire material/evidence placed by the parties before the District Forum and, by a well-reasoned order, dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner.    

7.       In view of the above, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting interference in our limited Revisionary Jurisdiction.   Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.