DLF India Limited now DLF Universal Limited, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Plot No.2, Tower-D, Ground Floor, Chandigarh, UT through its Executive Director/authorized representative, now as M/s DLF Universal Ltd., having its office at SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh (U.T).

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1. Anju Gupta w/o Sh. Rajesh Gupta r/o House No.144, Sector 46, Chandigarh.

....Respondent No.1/complainant

2. Mahesh Gupta s/o Sh. Y.P. Gupta r/o House No.1095, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh now r/o H.No.2691, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2

3. M/s M.G. Good Lands Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1086-87, 2^nd

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:

Argued by:Sh. Avinit Avasthi, Advocate for the appellant.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

“We accordingly allow this complaint and direct opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by opposite party No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of receipt till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.”  

However, the complaint against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 was dismissed by the District Forum with no order as to costs.

2.           

3.           

4.           

5.            Party No.2, nor did he indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.   

6.           

7.           

8.            

9.           

10.        

11.        

12.         

13.        

14.        

15.          

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.—

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of   Fair Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N.K.Modi (1996)6  . In this view of the matter, this objection of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

16.        

17.        

“19. 

18.        

19.       

“The Applicant has clearly understood that by submitting this Application, the Applicant does not become entitled to the final allotment of the Said Plot in the Said Project, notwithstanding the fact that the Company may have issue a receipt in acknowledgement of the money tendered with this Application. The Applicant further understands that it is only after the issuance of the letter of allotment that the allotment will get confirmed and after the Applicant signing and executing the Agreement and agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions laid down therein that the allotment of the Said Plot shall become final. If the Applicant fails to execute and return the Agreement within thirty (30) days from the date of its dispatch by the Company, then the Company shall have the discretion to treat this Application as cancelled and on such cancellation the Earnest Money (hereinafter defined) along with the Non Refundable Amounts (hereinafter defined), paid by the Applicant, shall stand forfeited. The Applicant is aware that the layout plan (attached as Annexure-II) of the Project has been approved vide letter memo no.1585 CTP (PB) MPM – 133 dated 4^th

20.          C-9 to C-12, placed, on record of the District Forum, by respondent No.1/complainant, as additional evidence, to contend that the approvals were obtained subsequently, were of no help. In fact the document, Annexure C-9, is a revised layout plan and Annexures C-10 to C-12 are the approvals of zoning plan, regarding which, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 had clearly mentioned, as extracted above, that necessary zoning plan for development of the said project shall be submitted by the Company to the Chief Town Planner, Punjab at Chandigarh. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, at the time of allotting the unit to respondent No.1/complainant did not conceal this material fact from her. Therefore, this contention of respondent No.1/complainant, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.

21.        

22.        

23.        

24.        

25.        

26.        

Pronounced.

^{April 25, 2014.                                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]}

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Ad

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.70 of 2014)

Argued by:Sh. Avinit Avasthi, Advocate for the appellant.

Dated the 25^th

ORDER

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, is accepted, with no order as to cost. The order of the District Forum has been set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant, before the District Forum, has been dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ad