PRONOUNCED ON: 2nd March 2017 ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER These two revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against separate impugned orders, both dated 03.06.2011, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 778/2010, M/s M2K Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manish Kumar Srivastav & Ors. and First Appeal No. 777/2010, M/s M2K Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pawan Rana & Anr., vide which, while dismissing the two appeals, the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon on 02.04.2010 in Consumer Complaint No. 74/2008 and Consumer Complaint No. 231/2008, allowing the said complaints, were upheld. 2. The facts in both the cases are that the complainants booked flats with the OPs/petitioners in their residential project known as M2K County Heights at Dharuhera and deposited a total sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with them on different dates in instalments. Since the possession of the property was not handed over to the complainants as per the schedule, they sought refund of the entire deposited amount. It was alleged that the opposite party/OP was not competent or authorised to collect any amount from the complainants for the Dharuhera project, because by that time, no licence had been issued in their favour by the competent Government authorities in the Department of Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana. The complainants also alleged that no construction had been started at the site and there was no clause in the proposed application form as well as in the Buyer’s Agreement about the date of start of construction of the project and handing over the possession of the flat to the complainants. The complainants filed the consumer complaints in question, seeking directions to the OP not to ask for any further money for the project and to clearly indicate the date of commencement of construction work and date of completion of the project. It was also stated that interest on the amount deposited @ 24% per annum should be given to the complainants and further, a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs against mental harassment and Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation should also be given. 3. The complaints were resisted by the OP/petitioner by filing written statements before the District Forum, stating that the complainants booked the apartment and paid Rs. 3 lakhs as part payment of registration fee and further paid the remaining part of the registration fee i.e. Rs. 2 lakhs after several reminders. However, due to fall in prices in the market, the complainants did not make payment of the remaining instalments as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant had made the complaints with the sole purpose of avoiding the payment of instalments. 4. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments made by the parties, allowed the complaints vide their separate orders both dated 02.04.2010 and observed that since the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was obtained by the OP before the issuance of licence, there was deficiency in service on their part. The District Forum directed that the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs be refunded to the complainants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit and also to pay Rs. 30,000/- for compensation for harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. Being aggrieved against the said orders, the OP/petitioner challenged the same by way of appeals before the State Commission and the said appeals having been dismissed vide impugned orders dated 03.06.2011, the OP/petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petitions. 5. During hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants submitted that they had already received payments under the orders passed by the District Forum, duly confirmed by the State Commission and hence, they had no issue left with the petitioner at this stage. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the consumer fora below had held them guilty of deficiency in service, saying that they had accepted the money from the complainants before the issuance of licence, but the said allegation against them was not true and hence, they had filed the present Revision Petition with the objective of getting that stigma removed from them. The learned counsel has drawn attention to a copy of the ‘Application for advance registration for flat in Future Residential Projects’ of the Company, filed by the complainants. It has been made clear in the said application that a formal application for allotment of flat alongwith terms and conditions of sale shall be submitted as soon as intimation about the said allotment is received by the complainant. The learned counsel stated that the licence for the property at Dharuhera was issued to them on 02.01.2007. Immediately on receipt of the licence, they sent an allotment letter on 10.01.2007, saying that the request of the complainants for the apartment in their proposed residential group housing project, M2K County Heights at Dharuhera had been accepted and the same shall be allotted to them, subject to their sending the application form alongwith other documents. The money receipts dated 27.12.2006 for Rs. 3 lakhs were also sent to the complainants alongwith this letter. According to the learned counsel, there was no violation of Section 7 of the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 on the part of the petitioner in this manner. The learned counsel further stated that even the complainant had stated in para 5 of the complaint that at the time of handing over the cheque to the OP, he was never informed that his application form/cheque was for booking of the flat in Dharuhera. Further, a show cause notice had been sent to them by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, but the same was withdrawn vide letter dated 31.03.2010 from the said Directorate, a copy of which had been placed on record. 6. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. 7. As submitted by the counsel for the complainants, they had already received the money in pursuance of the impugned orders passed by the consumer fora below, and they had no cause of action left with the petitioner. However, in so far as violation of Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 is concerned, it is amply made clear from the copy of the application forms submitted by the complainants that the money was deposited by them as advance registration for one flat each in Future Residential Projects of the Company. The money was not deposited by the complainants specifically for the project at Dharuhera. In the complaints also, the complainants have mentioned that at the time of submitting the application forms and the cheques in question, they were never told that the said money was being accepted for the Dharuhera project. Further, it is made out from the record that the licence for the project at Dharuhera was received by the OPs on 02.01.2007 and thereafter, on 10.01.2007, they sent letter of allotment in favour of the complainants for the project at Dharuhera and asked them to submit the requisite application forms and the documents required. In view of these facts, the violation of Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 has not been proved on record. Since the money received by the petitioner from the complainants has since been refunded alongwith interest, no cause of action, therefore, survives in the matter and hence, the Revision Petitions in question stand disposed of with no order as to costs. |
