JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant / respondent namely Pankaj Goel was allotted a residential apartment by the petitioner in Sector 88, SAS Nagar, vide Letter of Intent dated 21.5.2012 for a tentative price of Rs.55,00,000/-. As per the payment schedule, after making the initial payment in terms of the letter of intent, the complainant was to pay the balance amount in six instalments, as detailed below: | Instalments No. | Due date | Principal amount | Interest | Total amount payable | 1 | 1 | 21.11.2012 | 595833.00 | 214500.00 | 810333.00 | 2. | 2 | 21.5.2013 | 595833.00 | 178750.00 | 774583.00 | 3. | 3 | 21.11.2013 | 595833.00 | 143000.00 | 738833.00 | 4. | 4 | 21.5.2014 | 595833.00 | 107250.00 | 703083.00 | 5. | 5 | 21.11.2014 | 595833.00 | 71500.00 | 667333.00 | 6. | 6 | 21.5.2015 | 595835.00 | 35750.00 | 631585.00 | | | Total | 3575000.00 | 750750.00 | 4325750.00 |
2. Clause 3 (II) of the Letter of Intent, to the extent it is relevant reads as under: “3. Ownership and Possession Allotments shall on free hold basis. Possession of apartment shall be handed over after completion of development works of site ina period of thirty six months form the date of issuance of Letter of Intent.In case for any reason, the Authority is unable to deliver the possession of apartments within stipulated period, allottee shall have the right to withdraw from the scheme by moving an application to the Estate Officer in which case, the Authority shall refund the entire amount deposited by the applicant along with 8% interest compounded annually.Apart from this, there shall be no other liability of the Authority. The ownership and possession of apartments shall continue to vest with Greater Mohali Area Development Authority until full payment is made of outstanding dues in respect of the said apartment.”
3. It would thus be seen that the possession of the plot was to be delivered by 21.5.2015 and the sixth instalment of Rs.5,95,835/- along with interest amounting to Rs.35,750/- was also payable on the same date. The balance amount of Rs.2,75,000/- was payable at the time of taking possession of the plot. 4. The complainant paid the five instalments but the sixth instalment due on 21.5.2015 was not paid since according to him, there was no development at the site. Basing its decision on non-payment of the sixth instalment, the petitioner refunded a sum of Rs.47,19,723/- to the complainant out of the total amount of Rs. 53,64,000/- deposited by him. The complainant therefore approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of the balance amount of Rs.6,27,282/- and the amount of Rs.16,995/- which he had paid as service tax, along with interest and compensation. 5. The petitioner did not file a written version / reply to the complaint and therefore, was proceeded ex-parte. 6. The District Forum vide its order dated 28.2.2017 directed the petitioner to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.62,78,282/- along with interest @ 8% per annum, compensation quantified at Rs.15,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.10,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on merits, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 8. As noted earlier, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within three years of the Letter of Intent, meaning thereby that the same ought to have been delivered by 21.5.2015. The sixth instalment was also payable on that date. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the sixth instalment due on 21.5.2015 was not paid, the petitioner was justified in cancelling the allotment and forfeiting the Earnest Money. I however, find no merit in the contention. Since the possession of the plot itself was to be delivered by 21.5.2015, the petitioner, in my opinion, should have offered possession of the plot to the complainant on or before 21.5.2015 while demanding payment of the sixth instalment which was payable on 21.5.2015. Had that been done and had the complainant defaulted in payment of the sixth instalment, despite receiving offer of possession of the plot, the petitioner would have been justified in forfeiting the Earnest Money and refunding the balance amount to the complainant. The possession having not been offered on 21.5.2015, which was the last date for such an offer, the complainant, in my view was not obliged to pay the sixth instalment on 21.5.2015. The forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit cannot be justified. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the concurrent view taken by the fora below does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdictional. The revision petition therefore is liable to be dismissed on merits. Since the revision petition is otherwise liable to be dismissed on merits, I need no consider whether the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission was justified or not. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. |
