^{UNIONTERRITORY,CHANDIGARH}

Ankur Sood s/o Sh. Ashok Sood, Flat No.42/C, Army Flats, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.

^{---Appellant/Complainant}

^Versus

1.      

2.      

^{.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties} 

BEFORE:

Argued by:                  

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

“14.      The complaint is allowed accordingly. The Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-

i.        to pay the sum of Rs.2,00,464/- (Rs.3,00,696/- minus Rs.1,00,232/-), to the complainant;

 ii.     to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. 

15.    

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant applied to the Opposite Parties, for a residential plot, in the project named Omaxe Parkwoods, Baddi-II to be developed in District Solan (H.P). The project was expected to be developed within 15 months, as per the terms & conditions (Annex. C-1). The complainant initially deposited Rs.1,00,500/- vide cheque dated 21.11.2007 and Rs.2,00,196/- vide cheque dated 20.08.2008 (receipts Annexures C-2 and C-7). It was stated that despite passage of time, the project was not being developed and no plot buyer’s agreement was executed between the parties. The complainant took up the matter with the Opposite Parties and their Officers a number of times for issuing the allotment letter. It was further stated that signatures on some blank documents were obtained from the complainant, by the Opposite Parties and signatures on affidavits prepared at the time of deposit of initial amount were also obtained. 

3.                    In their written reply, the Opposite Parties, took up the preliminary objections, regarding territorial jurisdiction and limitation. It was stated that the complaint had been filed after a period of more than 02 years from the date of cancellation of allotment in favour of the complainant. On merits, all the allegations made in the complaint were denied.  

4.                    The complainant filed replication, wherein, the averments contained in the complaint, were reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties, were controverted.

5.                     The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the complainant for enhancement.

8.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.                    The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the District Forum failed to redress the substantial portion of the grievances of the appellant/complainant, by not refunding the whole amount deposited by him. He further submitted that despite allowing the complaint, no interest and compensation has been awarded to the complainant. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum being illegal is liable to be set aside.

10.                  It is evident from Condition No.6 of the basic terms and condition, Annexure C-1, copy whereof, was placed on record by the complainant himself, that “timely payment of instalment of basic sale price and allied charges pertaining to the residential plot was the essence of the terms of the booking/allotment. It was further stipulated that in the event of any breach of the terms and conditions of allotment by the applicant, the allotment would be cancelled at the discretion of the Company and the earnest money together with any interest on instalments due, but unpaid, and interest on delayed payments shall stand forfeited. The balance amount shall be refundable to the applicant without interest, after the said residential plot is allotted to some other intending applicant and after compliance of certain formalities by him.      

11.                  In so far as the plea of the Counsel for the complainant for awarding of interest and compensation is concerned, the District Forum was right in not awarding the same to the complainant because it was he (complainant) who himself failed to pay due instalments, in time, despite repeated reminders issued, in this regard, by the Opposite Parties and, as such, he could not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit must fail and the same is rejected accordingly.12.                  As regards the submission of the Counsel for the appellant that the appellant categorically denied Annexures R-2 to R-10 reflecting the demand of payment is concerned, we find no substance in this submission because from the perusal of the facts, it is crystal clear that the complainant opted for Time Link Payment Plan and he was required to make the payment periodically to the Opposite Parties. The complainant without taking cognizance of the demands for payment, preferred not to pay the same to the Opposite Parties..  

13.                  In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.                  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with  no  order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.                  Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.                  The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

03.06.2014  Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.]

                                                                                                           Sd/-

           [DEV RAJ]

Sd/-

^{[PADMA PANDEY]}

^MEMBER

cmg