BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Manju Garg w/o Sanjeev Kumar Garg, r/o House No.74, NPHC, BBMB Complex, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

M/s BCL Homes Ltd., Regd. Office : Shop No.140, Railway Road, Dariya, UT, Chandigarh.

2^nd Address : #253, Sector 7, Panchkula, through its authorized signatory.

3^rd Address : BCL Homes Ltd., Site Office, Chinar Homes, Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

                                                ……Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                    PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Gagan Aggarwal, Counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh.Rajesh Verma, Counsel for the OP.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- through cheque dated 21.1.2010 on account of pre-launch booking of 3 BHK apartment on 3^rd floor at the cost of Rs.33,50,000/- in the proposed project ‘CHINAR HOMES’, Village Kishanpura, NAC, Zirakpur. The complainant also deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash vide receipt No.233 dated 19.6.2010 and Rs.1,00,000/- vide cheque bearing No.279758 qua receipt No.273 dated 15.7.2010.

              It is the case of the complainant that in November, 2010, it was conveyed to her that the above said project was not approved by the competent authority. That the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was sent to her with the undertaking that in case the project is approved by the competent authority in future, then 3 BHK apartment at the same price and same floor would be allotted to her. It has been further stated that the complainant came to know that the above said project had been approved by the competent authority and the OP also started the booking. The complainant sent a letter dated 7.9.2011 – Annexure C-4 but till date, OP did not reply and as such violated the undertakings given by it.  It has been further stated that the OP used the amount of Rs.2.50 lacs of the complainant for about one year. The complainant served a legal notices dated 24.9.2011 and 13.10.2011 but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.           OP filed the reply, wherein, it took the preliminary objections vis-vis the complaint does not fall within the purview of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, maintainability, complaint involves complicated questions and law which cannot be decided under summary jurisdiction. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant booked flat and made payment. It has been pleaded that the project was a proposed project and it was at the stage of pre-launching and was subject to approval of the competent authority/municipal authority. It is admitted that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2.50 lacs. It was further pleaded that since the project was not approved and was under the consideration of the Municipal Authority/Government, so on the asking of the complainant, the amount of Rs.2.50 lacs was refunded to her. It has been further pleaded that once the amount had been refunded by the OP, the contract between the parties has come to an end. It has been denied that the OP had given any assurance /commitment to allot or book the same apartment at the same price and also at the same floor as alleged in the complaint. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.  

3.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.           The admitted facts of the case may be noticed thus;

a)           That the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with the OP.

b)           That the complainant booked a flat in the proposed project ‘Chinar Homes’, Village Kishanpura, NAC, Zirakpur.

c)           That the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was refunded to the complainant by the OP.

6.           The complainant has raised the plea that the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was sent to her with the undertaking that in case the project is approved by the competent authority in future, then 3 BHK apartment at the same price and same floor would be allotted to her. The complainant has not produced any evidence on the file to prove that the OP at the time of refunding the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- gave the undertaking that in case the project is approved by the competent authority in future, then 3 BHK apartment at the same price and same floor would be allotted to her. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no direction can be issued to the OP to allot 3 BHK apartment at the same price and same floor.

7.           The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant came to know that the project had been approved by the competent authority, so she sent a letter dated 7.9.2011, which was not replied, therefore, the OP has violated the undertakings given by it. It has already been held that the complainant has failed to prove that the OP has given any undertaking at the time of refunding the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, therefore, no question of violating the undertakings given by the OP arises.

8.           The learned Counsel for the complainant lastly argued that the OP has used the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, so the complainant is entitled for interest @ 24% on the amount deposited by her. Admittedly, the OP has only refunded the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant without any interest. It has been held in re-case Ramesh Kumar Dua Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority, 2008(1) CLT 560 (NC) that when the scheme is cancelled, irrespective whether there had been genuine reason to cancel the scheme or not, the complainant shall be entitled to refund of amount along with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit till the money is retained. The learned Counsel for the OP failed to rebut or controvert the arguments and the said plea raised by the learned Counsel for the complainant. In view of this, it is held that the complainant is entitled for interest on the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

9.           As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OP is directed to pay interest @ 12% on the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, from the date of deposit till the amount was retained by the OP. OP is also directed to pay litigation costs of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant. This order be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

10.          The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.