Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/19/2016

A.P. Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Universal Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Bhuwan Vats

19 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/19/2016
Date of Institution	:	07/01/2016
Date of Decision	:	19/04/2017

 

 

A.P. Arora s/o Jagat Ram r/o #427, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     DLF Universal Ltd., DLF Center, Sansad Marg, Delhi, 110001, through Managing Director.

2.     DLF Universal Ltd., SCO 190-91-92, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through Manager.

3.     Protech Commercial Systems, Aroma Hotel Complex, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through Manager. 

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Bhuwan Vats, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Arjun Sharma, Proxy Counsel for Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2.
	:	None for OP-3.

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that in the year 1993, OPs launched a commercial project titled “DLF Dilshad Plaza Labhkari Dukan Khushaali Ka Vardan Yojana” and started booking of shops. In pursuance to the advertisement, the complainant applied for a shop and paid application money of Rs.15,000/-. A draw was held by the OP company on 15.4.1994 and the complainant’s application was selected and allotment was made in his favour qua shop No.001/029/1B which was intimated vide letter dated 19.4.1994. Upon allotment, the complainant duly paid the remaining installments vide receipts Annexure C-4 (Colly.). Thereafter complainant waited for possession, but, instead he received a fresh and undue demand requiring him to pay Rs.30,000/- over and above the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- already paid. The complainant through letter dated 26.10.1995 raised and conveyed his objections and also brought to notice of the OPs some other deficiencies in the allotted property and its location and situation.  Thereafter a series of letters were received by the complainant from the OPs wherein the fresh demand was again unduly increased.  The complainant sent letters from time to time to the OP company requesting for refund of the application money of Rs.1,50,000/- and finally the said amount was sent to the complainant through cheque dated 11.6.2015, but, without any interest.  Hence, this consumer complaint.
2.         OPs 1 & 2 in their joint written statement have not disputed the factual matrix of the case. It has been averred that the OPs had been insisting the complainant to execute the sale deed and take possession of the demised shop, but, he failed to do so. It was only in 2013 that the complainant started sending the alleged letters for refund of his amount and though there was no policy of refund in case of fully paid up properties, the OPs after treating the complainant as a special case, refunded the entire amount. It has been stated that the demand of Rs.30,000/- was genuine and reasonable as Rs.22,900/- was demanded towards stamp duty and Rs.7,100/- towards external electrification charges. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         OP-3 in its written statement has averred that the acknowledgement of application bears the signature of an official of DLF Universal Ltd., on a stationery of DLF Universal Ltd. and OP- 3 has no role to play as associate of DLF Universal Ltd. in the scheme/project/event.  Thus, OP-3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it. 
4.         Replication was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments of complainant and OPs 1 & 2, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant and OPs 1 & 2.
7.         Facts of the case are more or less accepted to be correct.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for a shop in the commercial project titled “DLF Dilshad Plaza Labhkari Dukan Khushaali Ka Vardan Yojana” in the year 1993 from the OPs on payment of advance amount of Rs.15,000/- vide receipt dated 15.12.1993 (Annexure C-2).  Upon drawing of lots, application of the complainant was selected for allotment and allotment was made in favour of the complainant qua shop No.001/029/1B and the same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 18.3.1994, copy whereof is Annexure C-3. The complainant duly paid the remaining sale consideration as her schedule of payment plan prescribed by the company. The complainant paid the four installments of Rs.22,500/-, Rs.37,500/-, Rs.37,500/- and Rs.37,500/- respectively through cheques which were acknowledged by the OPs company vide receipts dated 17.5.1994, 28.4.1994, 23.12.1994 and 26.4.1995  respectively.  Receipts are annexed as Annexure C-4 (Colly.). But the OPs failed to deliver possession to the complainant. Instead, the complainant received a fresh and undue demand from the OPs which required him to pay Rs.30,000/- over and above the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which had already been paid by the complainant to the OPs, copy of letter is Annexure C-5.  Letters exchanged inter se parties in this connection are Annexure C-6 to C-9 respectively.  Thereafter, the complainant applied for refund of the application money of Rs.1,50,000/- vide letter copy whereof is Annexure C-10 (Colly.).  OPs did not make any response but sent a letter dated 25.6.2015 whereby an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was remitted to the complainant by way of cheque dated 11.6.2015, copy of the letter is Annexure C-14.
8.         The only dispute which the complainant has raised vide the instant complaint has been that since the OPs have retained the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- ever since the year 1994-95 till 11.6.2015, therefore,  they were under legal and moral obligation to have paid the application amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest.  Reliance in this connection has been placed upon K.A. Nagamani Vs. Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, III (2016) CPJ 16 (SC) wherein refund was given by the housing company after a period of 14 years The Apex Court held that such refund should have been accompanied with interest @ 18% as the complainant suffered loss because she had paid money in the hope of getting a flat and she has also been deprived of the benefit of escalation of price.
9.         The complaint was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act although the services were availed for commercial purposes.  Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Sanjay D. Ghodawat v. R.R.B. Energy Ltd., IV (2010) CPJ 178 (NC) wherein it has been held that there has to be no exclusion of a person hiring or availing services for consideration even though services were availed for any commercial purpose.  Hence the complaint was held to be maintainable. As such, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant is entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of payment until 11.6.2015 besides the damages for harassment as well as inconvenience and also litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.
10.         But, however, in our considered opinion, the complainant on 11.6.2015 voluntarily accepted the payment to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- as refund of application money.  No objection was raised nor any right to sue for interest was reserved by the complainant, which amounted to acquiescence on the part of the complainant.  On acceptance of the refund amount, the relationship of consumer – service provider inter se parties came to an end. Once the relationship under the Consumer Protection Act got snapped, no consumer dispute remain to be decided by the Forum under the Act. The law relied upon by the complainant does not advance the case of the complainant in any manner because in the Apex Court’s judgment supra the entire deposited amount was not refunded and the consumer filed complaint for refund of the deducted amount alongwith interest.  Eventually, the Hon’ble Apex Court recorded the findings that the cheque for refund should have been accompanied by interest @ 18% p.a. But, in the instant case, the entire deposited amount of Rs.1,50,000/- stood paid without any murmur/objection on the part of the complainant. It is after getting some legal advice that the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 19.10.2015 after a period of over four months of the receipt of total amount wherein the demand for interest was made. However, no such demand could have been raised, because no consumer–service provider relationship existed inter se parties at that stage or at the time of filing the instant consumer complaint. Consequently, the instant consumer complaint, as such, is not maintainable and the same is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
19/04/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg	Member	Member	President