Heard learned counsel for the complainant.

The contention raised is that the complainant after applying for an allotment in the project known as Purab Premium Apartments Greater Mohali deposited the amounts as per the scheme but later on the complainant and other similarly placed persons were disappointed as the opposite party authority notified the status of the scheme reducing the prospects of availability of apartments. 

The original announcement which seems to be was of constructing 4500 flats along with other amenities and it is under the said announcement and offer made that the complainant applied for a Type-III residential apartment for which a Letter of Intent for allotment was issued on dated 22.05.2012.  The said letter indicates that the complainant was successful in the draw of lots at serial no. 487.  After the Letter of Intent, the complainant proceeded to make payments of Rs.13,80,000/- as per the payment schedule provided for in the Letter of Intent.  

On 01.07.2013 a notice was published by the opposite party authority that the constructions would be in respect of a total number of 1620 apartments.  This therefore indicated a drastic reduction in the number of apartments, the area of the project as well as other amenities attached thereto.  The completion of the project was promised by September, 2015. 

Having come to know of this notification, the complainant moved an application for refund.  The refund was requested with a deduction of only 10% as per Clause 2.3 of the Letter of Intent dated 22.05.2012.  The refund was made to the complainant vide letter dated 11.06.2014.  According to the complainant, this refund was contrary to the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent and hence the complainant protested against the same.

Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the opposite party authority on the protest made, the complainant approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 16153 of 2014, and a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition of the complainant vide judgment dated 21.07.2015 on merits.  The arguments and the findings as recorded by the High Court categorically deal with the issues with regard to the amount of deduction and the manner of refund and then goes on to hold that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner/complainant that he was entitled to the refund of entire deposited amount along with 8% interested compounded annually.  The High Court also examined the issue of forfeiture and then came to the conclusion that in view of the transactions and the payments made by the complainant which are on record, there was no error or illegality in the order whereby the opposite party authority proceeded to forfeit an amount of Rs.8,00,683/- towards 10% of the amount while making refund of an amount of Rs.12,05,769/-.  Another amount which was corrected while calculating the liability to the sum of Rs.42,642/- was refunded to the complainant.

In sum and substance, the entire issue of allotment and consequential refund as claimed by the petitioner/complainant was raised and contested in the Writ Petition concluding with the judgment dated 21.07.2015 referred to above.

The complainant thereafter filed a complaint before the District Commission which was returned due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction in original vide order dated 02.03.2017.  The said consumer complaint no. 658 of 2015 had been instituted on 09.12.2015.  With the order returning the complaint and liberty to approach the appropriate forum vide order dated 02.03.2017, the complainant approached this Commission with the stated pecuniary jurisdiction disclosed by the complainant, whereupon the present complaint was entertained and notices were issued to the opposite party on 28.11.2018.  The written statement was taken on record and thereafter affidavit of evidence as well as other pleadings were exchanged and the matter has come up for final hearing.

Learned counsel for the complainant urged that the complainant being a senior citizen has been substantially deprived of his hard earned money by an incorrect forfeiture and a wrong deduction having been made by the opposite party authority, and hence there is a clear deficiency in service for which she has also relied on certain orders passed by different forums to contend that such a deduction cannot be made to the detriment of an allottee under the scheme.

Learned counsel for the opposite party however submitted that all these issues have been dealt with by the High Court in the judgment dated 21.07.2015 and therefore the present complaint cannot be entertained for the same issues that have been raised, contested before and decided by the High Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is more than evident that the complainant raised all the issues pertaining to the incorrect calculation and deficiencies relating to the refund as claimed by the complainant before the High Court in the Writ Petition referred to above.  The issues have been directly answered by the High Court and therefore applying the principles of res-judicata there is hardly any scope for this Commission to interfere in this complaint for evaluating any deficiency in service or recording any findings regarding unfair trade practice.  The calculations and the submissions having been dealt with and finalized by the High Court, there is no reason or occasion to proceed with this complaint any further.

Consequently, the complaint cannot be entertained and is dismissed.  Learned counsel submits that this may be without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances against the order of the High Court or this Commission.  It is not for this forum to render any opinion on this request as accessibility to any other or higher forum is governed by law.