1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The above appeal has been filed against the Order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh dated 15.10.2018 passed in consumer complaint no. 469 of 2018 whereby the State Commission has directed the appellant to refund the remaining amount of Rs.7,46,986/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 14.09.2017 till its realization and Rs.8,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. The respondent filed CC No. 469 of 2018 for directing the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.7,46,986/- along with interest and pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost. 3. It has been stated by the complainant that the opposite party advertised a flat in the project Purab Premium Apartment. The complainant booked a flat and deposited Rs. 6,90,000/- on 11.05.2012, Rs. 13,80,000/- on 26.06.2012 and Rs. 44,85,000/- on 15.10.2012. The total cost of the flat was Rs. 69,00,000/- against which by 15.10.2012 complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.69,55,000/-. As per the brochure the possession had to be delivered on or before 23.01.2015 but the possession was not delivered on due date. The opposite party through letter dated 23.08.2016 raised a demand of Rs.3,38,024/- which was deposited along with interest in November 2016. However, the opposite party has failed to deliver the possession of the flat. The complainant, therefore, wrote a letter dated 22.05.2017 for refund of his money. The opposite party has refunded the money of Rs. 62,08,014/- but deducted an amount of Rs.7,46,986/- for which the complaint was filed. The State Commission after hearing the parties by a detailed judgement has found that although about 95% of the consideration was paid till 15.10.2012 but the appellant failed to deliver possession on due date. The demand of the appellant dated 23.08.2016 has also been complied with along with interest even then the appellant failed to deliver possession. Therefore, the request of the complainant for refund of money was legal and the appellant was not entitled to deduct any amount. On this finding the complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.7,46,986/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and other consequential relief. Hence this appeal has been filed. 4. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parites and examined the record. 5. The fact that due date of possession was 21.03.2015 has not been disputed. Similarly, the fact that the appellant has deposited Rs. 69,55,000/- till 15.10.2012 has also not been disputed. It is well-settled by the Supreme Court that a flat buyer cannot be made to wait for unlimited period for possession. In the circumstances request of the respondent for refund of money through letter dated 22.05.2017 was perfectly legal and the appellant was liable to refund the entire amount along with interest. The counsel for the appellant, however, submits that since the respondent has asked for refund, therefore, it was well within the jurisdiction of the appellant to deduct the earnest money. In this case the appellant was in default in as much as the appellant has failed to deliver possession on due date i.e. on 21.03.2015 or till the date when the complainant asked for refund. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to deduct any amount in the garb of earnest money. The order of the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality. Appeal has no merits. It is dismissed. |
