ORDER
Complaint under Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date
Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member
Complainant booked a flat in the project, Earth Towne, Greater Noida (U.P.) of OP No. 1 through OP no. 2 by paying a booking amount of Rs.2,68,275/- vide cheque no. 328365 dated 23.1.2012 being 10% of the flat value.
It is alleged by the complainant that a verbal assurance was given by OP no. 1 to him that he has to pay only 20% of the value of the flat and rest would be arranged by them through the bank.
It is further alleged by the complainant that he received a letter dated 17.10.2012 from OP no. 1 stating that as he had not paid 40% of the value of flat under flexi payment plan, his plan has been converted into “construction linked Plan”. For which he had never agreed.
It is alleged by the complainant that he learnt from other source like media and friends that the holders like OP – no. 1 had not been given any clearance by the Noida authority in respect of the land to be developed and yet it has collected booking amounts from various people which amounts to an unfair trade practice.
It is further alleged by the complainant that he visited the office of OP no. 1 in the month of November, 2012 and met Ms. Preeti who told him that the Bank are not giving the loans against aforesaid project, and as he had not paid 40% of the value of flat his payment plan was converted from flexi plan scheme to construction linked plan. Ms. Preeti also stated to him that on cancellation he had to pay 5% of the amount deposited as on administrative charges.
It is alleged by the complainant that charging 5% administrative charges on the amount deposited is unwarranted as the OP No. 1 itself had failed to provide him with the loan facility as promised.
The complainant therefore approached this Forum for the redressal of his grievance.
The complainant has been contested by the OP s. OP – 1 has filed its Written Statement. It has stated that the complainant had failed to make requisite payment as per the application farm signed by him, and therefore for his own omission OP – 1 cannot be held liable. It has prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.
We have heard the arguments advanced at bar and have perused t he record.
The counsel for the OP has contended that as the complainant had failed to pay the requisite amount to OP – 1 is not liable for any deficiency in service.
The counsel for the complainant on the other hand has stated that the Complainant is not a default. He has further stated that no person will jeopardise his hard earned money on a disputed property having learnt about it through reliable sources like media. He has also placed a record the copies of newspaper cuttings in support of his contention.
The counsel for the complainant has further stated that OP – 1 had assured him that they will provide him with have loan facility but when the complainant visited its office, one of its employer namely Ms. Preeti told him that no bank is ready to provide loan on aforesaid property. A perusal of the Written Statement filed by OP make it clear that the property being developed by it was a disputed one. This is clear from a reading of Para 5 of the Para-wise reply of the W.S. which is reproduced below:-
5. That in regard to contents of para no. 5 of the complaints are not denied to the extent that the complainant was offered a price of Rs.2450/- per sq. ft. for a built up area of 1095 sq. ft. with an assurance that the property in question was not a disputed one. It is submitted that as alleged by the complainant about the dispute, the same was government matter. It is also pertinent to mention here that no harm as such was caused to the complainant and the OP had no control over the situation as the same was pending the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Moreover, the OP – 1 without the consent of the complainant had changed the payment plan from flexi pay plan to construction linked plan which amounts to unfair trade practices. A perusal of application form attached by OP – 1 makes it clear that the plan adopted by the complainant is flexi payment plan and OP without the consent of the complainant had changed it into a construction linked plan, which has been admitted to by the OP in its W.S. as well as evidence filed by it by way of affidavit. This act of OP amounts to deficiency in service.
We therefore, hold OP – 1 guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:-
- To refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,68,275/- (Two Lac Sixty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five only) alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. for the date of deposit till payment.
- To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only ) for pain and mental agony suffered by him.
- TO pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as cost of litigation.
The OP 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 OP 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.....................
