The appellant/complainant, Fatah Chand has filed this appeal, under Section 19, read with Section 20(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 9.3.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as the ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No.60/2013, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant failed to make payment for the flat allotted to him by the OP/respondent, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment, and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP/respondent. 2. It was stated by the complainant in the consumer complaint before the State Commission that he booked Flat No. B-1101 of 1130 sq. ft. area on 14.1.2011 for the Nirvana Residential Scheme of the OP, Mahima Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. An agreement was also signed between the parties on 14.1.2011 and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh as partial payment to the company, for which receipt no.12265 dated 18.1.2011 was issued in his favour. It has been alleged that the OP-builder sold the said flat no. B-1101 to some other person and hence, committed fraud and misrepresentation with the complainant. The complainant was asked to obtain Flat No. F-1102 of area 1294 sq. ft. by the OP, for which he gave his consent. It is further alleged in the consumer complaint that the OP-builder unilaterally and wrongly cancelled the allotment made in favour of the complainant on 4.1.2013 and refunded an amount of Rs.97,940/- to him by cheque. The complainant alleged that since the prices of the flats, in question, had increased over a period of time, the OP company wanted to take undue advantage from the same and hence, they illegally cancelled the allotment made in his favour. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP company to provide him Flat No.F-1102 at the price of Rs.21,36,394/- as mentioned in the agreement. It was also stated in the complaint, that if the said flat had been handed over to some other person, the complainant may be provided a similar flat elsewhere at the same rate, at which the original allotment was made, i.e. @ Rs.1651/- per sq. ft. In addition, the complainant wanted a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs against mental harassment and a further sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation on other grounds. 3. The State Commission, after taking into account the averments of the parties, dismissed the complaint, observing that many letters had been sent to the complainant by the OP-respondent to deposit the amount after booking of the flat. However, the OP cancelled the registration of the flat, because of the failure of the complainant to deposit the balance amount of money. Being aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 4. During hearing before me, the learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the complainant had made only one single deposit of Rupees one lakh with the OP-builder and thereafter, no further payment had been made. In the order passed by the State Commission, it has been recorded that the complainant was told to deposit 15% of the amount of the flat so that the agreement could be executed with him, but the complainant did not deposit the said amount, despite many reminders having been sent to him. The amount deposited by him was refunded after deducting service tax by cheque of Rs.97,490/-. Since the complainant did not present the cheque before the bank, which resulted in its expiry, the OP issued a fresh cheque on 20.4.2013 and the said cheque had already been got encashed by the complainant. 5. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. 6. It is clear from the facts and circumstances on record that the complainant himself admitted that he deposited a sum of rupees one lakh only for getting the property in question, from the OP-builder and thereafter, no further payment was made. The order passed by the State Commission brings out that despite writing many letters by the OP-builder to the complainant, he failed to deposit further amount after the booking of the flat. In this regard, reference may be made to the letter dated 30.11.2012, in which it was stated by the OP company that the reservation of the flat had been cancelled due to non-payment of outstanding instalments, but the complainant could reinstate his reservation by clearing up his instalments alongwith penal interest and reinstatement charges within 7 days of the receipt of the letter. It is not clear from the record whether the complainant took any steps to get the reinstatement done in pursuance of the above letter. The complainant has mentioned that he wrote letters dated 5.12.2012 and 12.12.2012 to the company, requesting them to have the matter settled through arbitration etc. However, the said steps do not help the complainant at all, because he should have at least made payments as per the original payment schedule to the company. 7. It is clear, therefore, that the company was well within its rights to cancel the allotment of the flat, in question, and no deficiency of service has been proved on their part vis-à-vis the complainant. The OP-builder also refunded the amount deposited by the complainant to him promptly and hence, they cannot be held guilty of retaining the money of the complainant in an illegal manner. The arguments made by the complainant/appellant that the OP demanded a sum of Rs.75,000/- from him as car parking charges wrongfully, does not help the complainant/appellant in any manner. Even if such a demand was wrongfully made, it was obligatory on the complainant to make payments for the flat as per the payment schedule. 8. Based on the discussion above, it is held that this appeal is without any basis and the same is ordered to be dismissed. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. |
