Haryana

StateCommission

A/1234/2016

M2K INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIMLA MALIK - Opp.Party(s)

JAINAINDER SAINI

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1234 of 2016

Date of Institution:      19.12.2016

Date of Decision :      08.08.2017

 

1.      M/s M2K Infrastructure Private Limited, E-13-29, Harsha Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its Authorized Signatory.

 

2.      M2K County, Sector 5, Dharuhera, Rewari through its Authorized Person.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Ms. Bimla Malik wife of R.M. Malik, resident  of House No.1024, Sector 16, Faridabad, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Sh. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.                                    

 

 

Present:               Shri Jainainder Saini, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Rajender Helwa, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          M2K Infrastructure Private Limited and its functionary-opposite parties (for short ‘Builder’) are in appeal against the order dated November 11^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby it directed the Builder to pay Rs.11,86,944/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of respective deposits; Rs.40,000/- compensation; Rs.11,000/- litigation expenses to Bimla Malik-complainant.

2.      On February 01^st, 2008 Smt. Santosh Yadav booked a flat in the project M2K County, Dharuhera.  Thereafter, the complainant got transferred the aforesaid booking in her favour vide Exhibit C-1.  In all, Rs.11,86,944/- was paid to the builder. Apartment Buyers Agreement dated February 01^st, 2008 (Exhibit R-1/12) was executed. Due to financial constraints, the complainant requested the builder to refund the deposited amount but to no avail.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The flat was booked in the year 2008.  The complainant requested the builder to refund the deposited amount in the year 2010.  There is nothing on record to show that an attempt was ever made by the builder to offer possession of the flat to any of the allottees in the project. 

4.      In the present case both the parties committed default. In Shri Harjinder S. Kang versus M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No.482 of 2014 decided on July 4^th, 2016 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the total value of the plot was Rs.1,21,62,250/-.  The complainant had deposited Rs.84,74,750/- with the opposite party. The National Commission held that the amount exceeding 10% of the total price of the property cannot be forfeited unless the opposite party can show that it has suffered loss to the extent of the amount actually forfeited by it.

5.      Learned counsel for the builder has urged that the amount after deducting 10% alongwith interest and litigation expenses, that is, Rs.22,28,943/- has already been deposited with the District Forum as observed by this Commission vide order dated March 08^th, 2017.  The complainant has already received the amount.  The District Forum vide order dated April 18^th, 2017 observed as under:-

          “We have perused the order dated 08.03.2017.  The complainant has received the aforesaid cheque by making an undertaking that the said cheque amount will be deposited by her in a term deposit i.e. FDR with her Bank account No.2202000109292056 with PNB, Jhajjar.  She further undertook that she will not withdraw the amount of said FDR before the final decision of the State Commission in Appeal No.1234 of 2016 and will submit the copy of the said FDR before this Forum within 10 days from today….”

 

6.      It is not permissible in law to forfeit any amount beyond a reasonable amount, unless it is shown that the person forfeiting the said amount had actually suffered loss to the extent of the amount forfeited by him. In Harjinder S. Kang (supra), 10% of the sale price can be said to be the amount which the Petitioner Company could forfeit on account of default on the part of the complainant.

7.      Since the complainant has already received the amount from the builder, she is at liberty to get the FDR encashed.

8.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal stands disposed of. 

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. 

 

 

Announced: 08.08.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK