Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1081/2013

Rajkumar Sujhija & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1081/13                            Dated:

In the matter of:

Mr. Raj Kumar Sukhija,

S/o Mr. Lachman Dass Sukhija,

Mrs. Indra Sukhija,

W/o Mr. Raj Kumar Sukhija,

Both R/o C-1/1061, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi-110070

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

M/s. Emaar-MGF Land Ltd.,

1^st Floor, ECE House,

28, K.G Marg, New Delhi-110001

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The Complaint alleges deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OP in not returning booking amount of Rs.17,59,833/- for a flat in pre-launch advertised flats in a Group Housing Colony called ‘Imerial Gardens’ in Sec 102, Village Khekri Majra, Dhankot, Gurgaon. The flats were to be yet constructed. The OP made a theoretical provisional paper of allotment of unit no.06/1102. This provisional allotment was to mature into definite only on execution of Buyer Builder Agreement, by A.R of the company. The company sent the agreement proposed. The complainant did not find the terms and conditions acceptable. The complainant decided to cancel the tentative allotment and sought refund. The OP did not respond and this complaint was filed.

The OP has filed a reply, in which all the facts are admitted and need not be reproduced. It has contended that this Forum had no territorial jurisdiction, and that complainant is not a consumer. It is also contended that OP never cancelled the booking and that 15% of the earnest money is deductable, in case of exit, as admittedly did not sign the agreement.

The OPs regd. Office confers jurisdiction firstly the bookings were taken in pre-launch stage, which is illegal practice as repeatedly held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in many cases. Secondly, by not signing of agreement there, is no consensus ad-ideum between the parties before commencement of construction. This consensus has not travelled beyond deposits already made. The OP cannot force the consumer to buy a flat, if does not want. There is no question of ‘earnest money’ unless contract is concluded. It has been settled by National Commission judgments that in such cases the builder/OP can deduct 15% of the deposit made, towards processing charges and should refund the balance.

In the light of above discussion, we hold OP guilty of deficiency in not returning the deposit as per law, and indulging in unfair trade practice. We direct OP to return the deposited amount with deduction of 15% and pay the balance with interest of 9% from date of seeking refund till payment. We also award net compensation of Rs.50,000/- inclusive of litigation expenses for deficiency and unfair trade practices.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on ……………….

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER