ORDER
Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President
The facts being identical, the above mentioned three complaints are being disposed of by this common order.
The complainants in all the three complaints had booked separate residential flats with the OP in its future residential project at Bhiwari. It was agreed between the parties that OP shall allot flats within a period of six months from the date of advance registration i.e. 13.5.2006 failing withich th complaiant shall be entitled to seek return of the deposited amount along with interest. The OP had, however, failed to make allotments as promised despite several requests made by the complainants. After a lapse of two years , the OP provisionally allotted separate flats in the name of the complainants vide letter dated 29.4.2008. the complainants were allotted flats in tower daffodil –B in the Ops project OMAXE height at OMAXE city Bhiwadi. Nothing was heard from OP with regard to the progress of the project for another two years after which the complainants received another letter dated 20.10.2010 from the OP informing that they had been reallotted separate flats in another tower namely Daffodil –B in the housing project. This was not acceptable to the complainantsand since no progress was being made in the projects launched by the OP , the complainants had sought refund of the amount deposited by them. The OP however had refused to refund the amount which led the complainants to approach this forum with the aforesaid complaints.
The complaints have been contested. OP1 has filed separate but identical replies in all the three complaints. OP1 has admitted that the complainants had booked separate flats with it. In its residential project OMAXE height. It has admitted that it had made provisional allotments in the favour of the complainants vide its letter dated 29.4.2008 in tower Dafodil –B. OP1 has also admitted that it had reallotted flats in favour of the complainants in another Tower namely Dafodil –B in its project OMAXE height vide letter dated 20.10.2010. it has explained the circumstances under which reallotments were made in Para 13 of its reply on merits. Para 13 is reproduced as under:-
13.
Op1 has denied any deficiency in service and has claimed that the complainants were themselves guilty of contravening the terms and conditios of th registration and had failed to make payment of installments in time. It has claimed that there are no merits in the complaints and they are liable to be dismissed. It has prayed accordingly.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The facts are not much in dispute. The three complainants had booked separate flats in the Future Residential Project of OP1in the year 2006 and had deposited various amounts with OP1. Vide letter dated 29.4.2008 OP1 had made provisional allotments of separate flats in favour of the complainants. This letter inter-alia reads as under:
It is alos admitted that OP1 vide letter daed 20.10.2010 had reallotted separate flats in favour of the complainants ina different Tower. This letter inter-alia reads as under:-
A perusal of the aforesaid letter of OP1 makes it amply clear that it had unilaterally changed the allotment of flats earlier allotted to the complainants. In fact the tower where the flats were provisionally allotted in the name of the complainants was not constructed at tall and whas shelved.OP1 was not entitled to unilaterally changed the location of the flats. If it wanted to do so , it had to obtain the prior concent of the complainants. Even otherwise, the projct has not made much headway despite the fact that the complainants had booked the flats in the year 2006. In these circumstances, the complainants were justified in seeking the refund of the amounts deposited by them. The refusal of OP1 to refund the amounts deposited by the complainants was an act of deficiency on its part. We, therefore, direct OP1 as under:-
In case No. 219/11 (Manik Garg V/s Omaxe Ltd)
Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 616815/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 10,000/- as cost of litigation.
In case No. 220/11 (Sangeeta Gupta V/s Omaxe Ltd)
Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 616815/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 10,000/- as cost of litigation.
In case No. 221/11 (Smit Garg V/s Omaxe Ltd)
Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 10,000/- as cost of litigation.
The OP1 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP1 fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
