Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1434

KISHANLAL AGRAWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIRECTOR, FARM DEVELOPERS FAME KINGDOM PALACE - Opp.Party(s)

SH.S.K.SAHU

09 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                            

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1434 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 30.06.2017 passed in C.C.No.475/2012 by the District Commission, Bhopal-2)

                                                    

KISHANLAL AGRAWAL.                                                                                     …          APPELLANT.

 

            Versus

 

DIRECTOR, FAME DWELLERS

(FAME KINGDOM PALACE) BHOPAL.                                                               …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                 :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :       MEMBER 

 

 

                                      O R D E R

09.07.2024

 

      Shri S. K. Sahu learned counsel for the appellant.

      None for the respondent.

 

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                        This appeal by the complainant/appellant is filed against the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-2 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.475/2012 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                Heard. Perused the record.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that being influenced by a scheme ‘Fame Kingdom Palace’ projected by the opposite party Fane Dwellers, the complainant booked a flat admeasuring

-2-

1360 sq.ft. costing Rs.23,00,000/- by depositing booking amount of Rs.25,000/- on the basis of information given in the brochure. It is alleged that at the time of booking, the complainant was informed that there will be a four storied building but later they expanded it to six storied building. The complainant therefore asked for refund of booking amount but the opposite party denied refunding the amount. The complaint filed by the complainant for refund of booking amount was erroneously dismissed by the District Commission.  

4.                As we carefully peruse the complaint, documents and the evidence placed before us, we observe that it is true that the complainant booked a flat no.406 in A Block in Fame Kingdom Palace with the opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as token amount on 01.03.2011 which is evident from receipt no.413 dated 01.03.2011 (C-1). C-2 is brochure.

5.                The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party unilaterally elevated the four storied building into six storied building and did not provide the facilities of auditorium, gymnasium, park and swimming pool. In the counter affidavit, the complainant has submitted that he made a demand for refund of booking amount within 15-20 days of deposition of amount. In such circumstances, how is it possible that within 15-20 days he

-3-

came to know that the opposite party elevated the building four storied to six storied and did not provide facilities of auditorium, gymnasium, park and swimming pool. This shows that the conduct of the complainant is not bonafide.

6.                It is evident from the record that the complainant deposited only token amount for the flat and no any other amount towards cost of the flat. On perusal of receipt C-1 dated 01.03.2011 it is clear that amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited towards Administrative Processing Charges, photocopy, typing charges commission, token amount, stamp duty, loan expenses. Interest on overdue amounts. Here it is clear that the complainant deposited Rs.25,000/- as token amount. In the said receipt it is specifically mentioned that these all amounts are non-refundable.

7.                The complainant with open eyes deposited the token amount for booking a flat and get receipt wherein it is specifically mentioned that the amount is not refundable. In such circumstances, how can he claim refund of the token amount. Even otherwise except token amount, the complainant did not deposit any amount towards consideration cost of the flat than also he cannot be termed as a consumer only on deposition of token amount.  

-4-

8.                Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant failed to prove his case.  We do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order as we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission. Accordingly, it is affirmed.

9.                In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

                     (A. K. Tiwari)               (Dr. Srikant Pandey)     

                     Acting President                       Member