Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.05.2009, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only),vide which it dismissed the complaint. 2. The complainant applied for a residential plot with OP-1 and got financed a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- towards 10% cost of the said plot. The allotment letter dated 4.2.2008 from OP-2, allotting plot No.D-09 measuring 299 sq. yards was received by the complainant. He wrote letter dated 18.2.2008 to OP-2 requesting him to send a copy of the tripartite agreement and for extension of time. No reply was received by him. Thereafter, he sent a reminder dated 2.6.2008. However, OP-2 vide its letter dated 2.6.2008 cancelled the residential plot and forfeited the earnest money/registration amount, by invoking Clause 23 of the allotment letter. Another notice dated 6.6.2008 was sent by the complainant followed by subsequent notice dated 23.6.2008, but to no avail. It was stated that by forfeiting the registration amount, for no fault of the complainant, the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no other alternative, he filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only). 3. OP No.1, in its written reply, stated that it was only a developer and had nothing to do with the allotment of the plot. He further stated that the allotment of plot was the sole prerogative of OP-2. It was denied that any request for extension of time or otherwise was sent to it. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency in service, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. It its reply, OP-2, stated that the allotment was cancelled for non compliance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, because as per Clause 23, the allotment of the plot could have been treated as accepted by the complainant, only if, he had deposited 15% price of the plot i.e. Rs.2,46,675/- within 15 days of the issue of allotment letter upto 18.2.2008. It was further stated that, under the terms and conditions of the allotment, there was no provision for extension of time. It was further stated that the allotment of the plot was cancelled and the amount was forfeited, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the remedy, if available, was by way of appeal, before the Administrator PDA under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, within 30 days of the cancellation order. It was denied that OP NO.2 was deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. 5. The Parties led evidence. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum dismissed the complaint . 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Appellant/ complainant. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties , and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, he deposited Rs.1,65,000/- towards 10% of the total cost of the plot, and the plot bearing No.D-09 measuring 299 sq.yds was allotted vide allotment letter dated 4.2.2008. He further submitted that the complainant was to deposit a sum of Rs.2,46,675/- , being 15% of the total price of the plot, within 15 days, from the date of allotment letter. He further submitted that within 15 days, he made a request to the Estate Officer, Patiala vide letter dated 18.2.2008 to send a tripartite agreement. He further submitted that, on account of financial constraints, and non-grant of loan, in time, by the bank, he could not deposit the amount within time. He further submitted that the complainant/appellant wrote many letters, for extension of time, for deposit of 15% of the amount of the total cost, but his request was not acceded to. He further submitted that no law authorized the OPs to forfeit the amount of registration, already deposited by the appellant/complainant. He further submitted that, in forfeiting this amount of the plot, the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, and indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, the parties were governed by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. He further submitted that the registration fee was deposited by the complainant and he was allotted the plot aforesaid. . He further submitted that, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant was required to deposit 15% of the total cost of the plot, within 15 days, and in the absence thereof, he was deemed to be ineligible and allotment was to be made as per the seniority/waiting list drawn, and the registration/earnest money paid by the applicant was to be forfeited. He further submitted that the parties could not go beyond the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. He further submitted that the District Forum, was right, in holding that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant applied for residential plot with OP NO.1, and paid a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-towards 10% of the cost of the plot. There is, also no dispute, that he received allotment letter C-2 dated 4.2.2008. According to Clause-23 of this letter, the complainant was required to deposit a sum of Rs.2,46,675/-, being 15% price of the plot, within 15 days of the issuance of the allotment letter. It was further made clear, vide this clause, that, in case, the complainant refused to accept the allotment letter, then such refusal, in writing, should be made within 15 days, from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. In case, the refusal was received after 15 days, from the issue of the allotment letter , the entire earnest money deposited, was to be forfeited. Not only this, according to Clause 13 of the said letter, non-payment of the installments, within the stipulated period, would entail cancellation of allotment, without assigning any further reason, and the registration/earnest money (10% of the cost of the plot) was to be forfeited, whereupon, the allottee was not to have any lien on the allotted plot. As stated above, the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Admittedly, 15% of the amount towards the cost of the plot was not deposited within 15 days, from the receipt of allotment letter, by the complainant. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the OPs were right, in canceling the allotment of the plot, and forfeiting the earnest/registration amount, already deposited by him. Even, under Clause-15 of Annexure C-1, placed on record, by the complainant himself, the successful eligible applicants will be required to make the payment of the first installment of their respective payment plans, within 15 days from the date of demand. As per note 2 under Clause 15 of C-1, in case, the eligible applicant failed to pay the first installment, as per the opted payment plan, within the time so fixed, he/she will be deemed to be ineligible and allotment will be made to the applicant as per seniority/waiting list drawn, and the registration/earnest money paid by the applicant will be forfeited. This document, therefore, clearly showed that, in case of non-payment of the installments, as per the payment plan, the allotment of the appellant was liable to be cancelled and the amount of registration was liable to be forfeited. After the allotment was cancelled and the amount was forfeited, the complainant had the remedy to file an appeal against the order Annexure C-5, to the Administrator, P.D.A. Annexure C-6 is the request letter, written to the Estate Officer, PDA dated 6.6.2008, whereupon the order Annexure C-7, was passed, whereby the previous order was maintained and the plot allotted to the complainant was cancelled and the earnest money amounting to Rs.1,65,000/- was forfeited under clause 23 of the terms & conditions of the allotment. The District Forum, was, thus, right in holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The District Forum, was also right, in holding that the complainant filed a false and frivolous complaint, just to harass the OPs. At the same time, the District Forum held that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not inclined to impose costs, upon the complainant, under Section 26 of the Act, for filing false and vexatious complaint. 12. The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 13. For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.3000/-. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to the record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
