1.      Heard Mr. Nithin Chandran, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Kapil Madan, Advocate, for the opposite party.  

2.      Komal Aggarwal has filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.2853728/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, to pay Rs.1000000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, Rs.100000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant and any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.      The complainant stated that Godrej Premium Builders Pvt. Ltd., renamed as Godrej Projects Development Pvt. Ltd. (the opposite party), was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project and selling its units to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a group housing project, in the name of “Godrej Summit”, at Sector-104, Gurgaon, Haryana in the year 2011 and made wide publicity of it. On coming to know about the aforesaid project, the complainant booked one unit on 12.03.2014 and deposited the booking amount of Rs.1000000/-. The opposite party allotted Unit No. E-1205 in the project, to the complainant, on 13.03.2014. Along with the allotment letter, a payment plan has been attached in which 25% of the basic sale consideration was payable within 60 days of the booking and remaining 75% was payable at the time of possession. In accordance with the payment plan, the complainant paid total Rs.2853728/-. Subsequently, due to some problem, the complainant could not proceed with the allotment and wrote a letter dated 31.05.2017 for cancellation of the allotment after forfeiture of the earnest money. The letter was received on 31.05.2017 with the endorsement ‘to be discussed with the management’. Later on, the opposite party wrote an e-mail dated 31.05.2017 informing the complainant that the forfeiture will be done in accordance with the allotment letter. But instead of returning the balance amount, after forfeiture of earnest money, possession letter was issued on 26.06.2017. The complainant replies vide e-mail dated 26.11.2017 that she has already moved a cancellation letter. The opposite party vide letter dated 09.12.2017, cancelled the allotment and forfeited Rs.2804167/-. The complainant gave legal notice that forfeiture of entire amount was not proper, which has been replied by the opposite party. Then this complaint was filed by the complainant.

4.      The opposite party put appearance and filed its written statement on 26.06.2018 and contested the case.  According to the opposite party, under the terms of allotment, 20% of the basic sale consideration is liable to be forfeited in the present case. The complainant filed rejoinder reply and affidavit of evidence and the opposite party has also filed its affidavit of evidence. 

5.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. The complainant opted for cancellation of allotment by the letter dated 30.05.2017 which was received by the opposite party before issue of offer of possession.  As the complainant is not able to proceed with the allotment, as such, she cannot be compelled to take the possession. However, the opposite party is entitled to forfeit the earnest money as the complainant is cancelling allotment. This Commission in CC/438/2019 Ramesh Malhotra Vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (decided on 29.06.2020), CC/3328/2017 Mrs. Prerana Banerjee Vs. Puri Construction Ltd. (decided on 07.02.2022) and CC/730/2017 Mr. Saurav Sanyal Vs. M/s Ireo Grace Pvt. Ltd. (decided on 13.04.2022), held that 10% of the basic sale price is reasonable amount, which is liable to be forfeited as earnest money.

6.      In the price list attached along with the allotment letter, the basic sale price has been mentioned as Rs.9834750/-.The preferred location charges have been mentioned as Rs.44415/-. The counsel for the opposite party states that as in the price list, preferred location charges have been mentioned, as such, it has to be included in the basic sale price of the unit. We have examined the final demand letter in which the preferred location charges have not been mentioned. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove that the flat allotted to the complainant situates at preferential location. Therefore, it is not proved that the flat which was allotted to the complainant, stands at a preferred location. In such circumstances, we do not agree with the counsel for the opposite party in this respect. No other issue has been raised by the parties. 

ORDER

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.06.2017 till the date of payment, after deducting 10% of the basic sale price from it, within a period of two months from today.