1. That the Petitioner prefers the instant Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 16/08/2012 passed by the Honle State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (herein after referred to as, tate Commission in First Appeal No. 265 of 2012 titled as ajbeer Singh vs. The Manager, The Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. By the final impugned order dated 16/08/2012 the Honle State Commission dismissed the Appeal and upheld the order dated 27/06/2012 passed by the Honle District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1, UT, Chandigarh ( herein after referred to as, istrict Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 130 of 2012. It is submitted that the Honle State Commission as well as Honle District Forum dismissed the case without considering the factual as well as legal aspect of the dispute. 2. The Facts in Brief: That the Complainant, booked a residential floor in he Terraces at Mohali Hills, in Sector 108, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, and paid a sum of Rs.3 lacs, vide cheque dated 04.09.2008. The OPs, vide communication dated 13.04.2009, Annexure C-1, informed about the provisional allotment of unit No.574/GF, in Mohali Hills, aforesaid. The Complainant was given assurance, by the OPs, that the Scheme would be launched, within one month and construction would start, but they failed to abide by their commitments. The Complainant, sent letters dated 05.10.2009, Annexure C-2 and 30.10.2009 Annexure C-4, to OP No.1, with a request to refund the earnest money of Rs.3 lacs, within 15 days, but all in vain. Ultimately, a legal notice dated 23.12.2009, Annexure C-5, was issued to the OPs, for refund of the amount, but no positive response was received. It was stated by OP that the Complainant was asked to sign the Buyer Agreement, failing which, the deposited amount shall stand forfeited, but the Complainant never signed the same and, as such, the terms and conditions were not applicable to him. It was further stated that, by not refunding the earnest money, deposited by the Complainant, the OPs, were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the Complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after to be called as the Act only), was filed. 3. OPs No. 1 and 2, in their joint written version, pleaded that the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was admitted that the Complainant, booked the apartment, in question, and paid the earnest money, to the tune of Rs.3 lacs, against the total sale consideration of Rs.46 lacs, but he failed to sign the Buyer Agreement, till the date of filing the complaint. It was stated that as per the terms and conditions of Advance Registration Application Form for Allotment, duly signed by the Complainant and Meenakshi, co-applicant, in the event of non-signing of the Buyer Agreement, by the Complainant, and returning the same, within 30 days, from the date of receipt of the same from the OPs, the earnest money deposited by the Complainant, stood forfeited, without any notice/reminder. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission heard the counsel for both the parties and through the evidence and records in this case and dismissed the Appeal as it was deferred on merits. 6. Aggrieved by this order the Complainant filed this Revision Petition in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. 7. We have heard the Counsel for both the parties and perused the evidence on record. The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Complainant booked the apartment by paying Rs.3 lacs and the provisional allotment letter Annexure-C. But the Complainant never received the buyers agreement. Hence, the question of signing and returning the agreement within 30 days from the date of receipt did not arise at all. Further, submitted that the OP unilaterally changed to the construction linked installment plan. The Complainant wrote numerous letters and requested for refund of advance money deposited but the OP did not respond. We have perused the etails and Broad Terms and Conditions mentioned alongwith advance registration application form for allotment issued by OP. In those conditions, Under Para 8 reproduced as follows: 8. Surrender/Cancellation 8.1) In case the refund of the initial deposit is sought after acceptance of application/registration within_____ months of issue of Allotment Letters, shall be refunded after forfeiting 20% of the registration amount. 8.2) The Applicant hereby authorizes the Company to forfeit the earnest money along with the interest paid, due or payable, along with any other amounts of non-refundable nature, in case of failure by the Applicant to sign and return to the company the Buyer Agreement within thirty (30) days of its dispatch by the company. Therefore, as per condition number 8.1 Complainant stand is a valid one. Counsel for OP Ms. Kartika Sohag relied upon only the clause 8.2 and stated that forfeiting of earnest money was correct. The Counsel for the OP contended that the Complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrong with intention of causing wrongful laws to the Respondent. The Complainant as under the terms of advance application registration form was obliged to return the executive buyers agreement within 30 days of dispatch from the Respondent company i.e. 24.04.2009. Therefore, the OP was agreeing the forfeiting the earnest money. 8. Counsel for OP relied upon an authority of Honle Apex Court in V. Lakshmanan v. B.R. Mangalgiri and Ors. (1995) Suppli. (2) SCC 33. It was held as follows: he question then is whether the Respondents are entitled to forfeit the entire amount. It is seen that a specific covenant under the contract was that Respondents are entitled to forfeit the money paid under the contract. So when the contract fell through by the default committed by the Appellant, as part of the contract, they are entitled to forfeit the entire amount She also relied upon another case Videocon Properties Ltd. v. Dr. Bhalchandra laboratories and others (2004) 3 SCC 711, dealt with a case of sale of immovable property. It was held by Honle Supreme Court as follows: t was a case where the plaintiff-Appellants had entered into an agreement with the Respondents-Defecndents on 13.05.1994 to sell the landed property owned by the Respondents and a sum of Rs.38,00,000/- was paid by the Appellants as deposit or earnest money on the execution of the agreement. In that case, this Court examined the nature and character of the earnest money deposit and took thed view that the words used in the agreement alone would not be determinative of the character of the arnest money but really the intention of the parties and surrounding circumstances. The Court held that the earnest money serves two purposes of being part-payment of the purchase money and security for the performance of the contract by the party concerned. In that case, on facts, after interpreting various clauses of the agreement. 9. The Petitioner Counsel argued that it was not the earnest money but it was the advance towards the initial payment of the payment. 10. The arguments of OP was that the Petitioner deposited the initial deposit. It is equal in nature of earnest money and referred few authorities of Honle Supreme Court but in our opinion those authorities are not applicable to this case on hand. 11. Therefore, it is very clear that the OP failed to pay the amount of Rs.3 lacs but forfeited on the ground as stated above. The Complainant never signed the buyers agreement therefore, the condition no. 8.2 will not apply. Hence the company has no right to forfeit the amount deposited by the Complainant on account of booking residential floor in he Terrace at Mohali Hills. It is the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 12. Both the Fora below have not appreciated the Para 8.1 and only relied upon Para 8.2. Therefore, the Petitioner / Complainant is entitled for the refund as per Para 8.1 i.e., after deducting 20% of the Registration amount. 13. In view of the above discussion we set aside the order passed by both the Foras below and pass the order that the OPs are directed to refund Rs. 240000/- only to the complainant from the date of filing of the Complaint within 60 days otherwise, it will carry interest at 9% per annum till recovery. No order as to costs.