Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/18/349

VIJAYLAXMI INFRASTRUCTURE (I) PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAYARAM SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

MS.MALA KHARE

05 Dec 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 11.09.2018 passed in C.C.No.518/2017 by the District Commission, Gwalior)

 

VIJAY LAXMI INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

THROUHGH MANAGER/DIRECTOR/PARTNER,

DHAAM STONE PARK, MOTI JHEEL,

A. B. ROAD, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                …        APPELLANT

 

                  Versus

 

MAYARAM SHARMA,

S/O LATE MATADEEN SHARMA,

R/O GADAIPURA, SHARMA FARM HOUSE, GWALIOR

PERMANENT ADDRESS: JABRAN COLONY,

NAGDA, DISTRICT-UJJAIN (M.P.)                                                         …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY               :       ACTINGPRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK         :       MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri R. K. Kaimaithiya, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Ghanshyam Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 05.12.2024)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member:

 

                    This appeal by the opposite party/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘opposite party’) is directed against the order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 518/2017 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

 

-2-

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that he had booked a 2BHK Duplex (G-5) for a sum of Rs.19,70,000/- in Laxmi Dham, a housing scheme projected by the opposite party. On 20.01.2012 he had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- as booking amount and thereafter on 17.07.2012 he had deposited Rs.3,76,000/- as second installment. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party did not start the construction at the proposed site and he therefore sought refund of the amount deposited but the opposite party did not return the amount. The complainant thus approached the District Commission seeking refund of Rs.5,76,000/- deposited by him with compensation of Rs.28,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as costs.

3.                The opposite party in its reply before the District Commission denied the averments contained in the complaint. It is however admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- on 20.01.2012 and Rs.3,76,000/- on 17.07.2012 to purchase Duplex. It is submitted that the opposite party constructed the houses as per map approved by Town & Country Planning and permission of the Municipal Corporation at the proposed site. 40% to 50% construction work is over. The complainant himself did not deposit the balance amount. If the complainant is ready to pay the balance amount, the opposite party is ready and willing to give him possession of the constructed house. 

-3-

4.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the opposite party to refund the amount deposited by the complainant i.e. Rs.5,76,000/- after deducting service tax charges within one month failing which the amount be paid with interest @ 8% p.a. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant argued that the District Commission has erred in passing the impugned order without considering the fact that the complainant himself was at fault since he did not deposit the amount as per payment schedule. The complainant did not comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between them whereas the opposite party started the construction of the duplex. The opposite party invested Rs.9,00,000/- in the said duplex. Since in this case there has been default on complainant’s part, no liability can be affixed on the opposite party. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent supported the impugned order and argued that the District Commission has rightly granted relief considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further argued that the opposite party did not construct the house at the proposed site. The conduct of the opposite parties exhibits negligence and

-4-

deficiency in service and the District Commission has therefore rightly awarded the aforesaid amount. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8.                It is submitted by the opposite party that delivery of possession of the house in question was subject to payment of complete sale consideration.  The complainant alleged that the opposite party did not construct the house at the proposed site.  On the other hand, the stand of the opposite party is that the opposite party constructed the house as per map approved by the Town & Country Planning and as per permission granted by the Municipal Corporation at the proposed site.

9.                R-5 is Preliminary Terms and Conditions wherein in condition no.2, it is clearly stated that in case the booking is cancelled, the booking amount less the service tax, shall be refundable without any interest. Amount deducted towards service tax shall not be refunded.

10.              Considering the aforesaid terms and conditions and in view of the fact that the complainant had sought refund of the amount deposited, the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund the amount deposited by the complainant after deducting service tax within one month. The complainant is rightly not found to be entitiled for any interest on the deposited amount. We do not

 

-5-

find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, it is hereby affirmed.

11.              As a result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

         (DR. SRIKANT PANDEY)                   (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

            ACTING PRESIDENT                                MEMBER