Haryana

StateCommission

A/1000/2014

M/s Ferrous Infrastructure P. Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raj Bala - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                               Appeal No.1000 of 2014 in First Appeal No.765 of 2012

                          Date of the Institution:14.06.2012

Date of Decision: 06.04.2016

 

1.      M/s Ferrous Infrastructure P. Ltd. First Floor, Vatika Towers, Golf Course Sector Road, Gurgaon.

2.      Site Manager, M/s Ferrous Infrastructure P. Ltd. Ferrous City, Sector-89, Faridabad.

Both appellants through authorized representative Arun Raghav.

 

                                                                             .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Raj Bala w/o Sh.Mahender Singh, r/o House No.14, Bijlo Board Wali Gali, Nagar Singh Colony, Faridabad.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sourab Goel, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr.S.K.Yadav, Advocate for respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   It was alleged by complainant that she booked flat with the Opposite Parties (O.Ps.) and was allotted flat No.903 Tower Block “O” 9^th Floor Sector 89, Ferrous City, Faridabad. She deposited amount as and when demanded by Ops on different dates as mentioned below:

                   “Sr.No.       Date           Receipt No.         Amount                1.      25.12.2007                             2706                   Rs.3,50,000/-               2.      25.12.2007                            2708                    Rs.2,50,000/-               3.      25.12.2007                   2709                              Rs.2,75,000/-“

She also deposited two cheques amounting to Rs.1,64,145/- on 07.08.2008 and another cheque of Rs.1,91,250/- on 15.09.2008 as demanded by Ops.  When she went to the office of Ops it was told that aforesaid flat was allotted to someone else and she could opt for ordinary flat. They be directed to allot that very  flat which was allotted to her in the beginning and pay compensation etc. as mentioned in the complaint.

2.                Ops filed reply and alleged that averments raised by her were altogether wrong. There was no deficiency in service on their part as they offered similar flat to her at the rate prevailing in the year 2007, but, she was insisting on the same flat which was not available. Even when they offered similar flat at the same price to complainant, she filed this frivolous complaint. Objections about maintainability of compliant, jurisdiction of Forum, locus standi and estoppal etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 08.05.2012  and directed as under:-

“In view of the offer of the respondents which has been accepted by the complainant, the respondents are directed to allot and give possession of flat No.L-1301; 02-3 bedrooms, 1412 sq. ft. area, to the complainant after accepting the balance amount without interest. It is further clarified that allotment will be made on the same rate on which plot No.903 was agreed to be allotted to the complainant”.

4.      Feeling aggrieved, therefrom, the appellants-opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel qua for appellants vehemently argued that the flats were offered to the complainant at current rate of Rs.2500/- sq. ft. and not as per rate at which flat No.903 was allotted. Learned District Forum wrongly directed to allot an alternative flat at the same price. As complainant did not deposit amount in time so allotment was cancelled.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force. From the perusal of the evidence available on the file, it is clear that the complainant deposited        amount by the time fixed by appellants. Vide letter dated 26.07.2008 complainant was asked to deposit amount by 7^th of August, 2008 and on the said date she deposited cheque of Rs.1,64,145/-. Vide letter dated 03.09.2008 she was asked to deposit Rs.1,91,250/- by 15.09.2008 and she deposited cheque on that very day. O.Ps. did not submit cheques for encashment and returned to complainant. So, it cannot be held that there was any fault on the part of the complainant. The Ops have failed to show that despite demand she never deposited any amount and that is why  the allotment was cancelled. Had she not complied with dates mentioned in letters, then it could have been the different matter.  The builders prefer to adopt Fabian Policy which helps them to feather their own nest i.e. to make profit for themselves often at expenses of others. It shows that the appellant is acting as per their whims and they want to follow the policy of Heads I win Tails you lose. Such an act of builder cannot be appreciated keeping in view of the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Consumer Case No.347 of 2014 titled as Swarn Talwar & 2 Ors. vs Unitech decided on  14.08.2015 and C.M. Nayar and another Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. and Anr. 2016 (1) CPR 256 (NC).  Moreso, as already mentioned above in reply, it is alleged by the appellant that they were ready to allot the flat to the complainant at the same price whereas now they are alleging to allot it on the prevailing rate. They are barred from raising this plea at this stage. In these circumstances when there is no fault on the part of the complainant she cannot be asked to pay the current price. She is entitled for the flat at the rate at which flat No.903 was allotted which was wrongly cancelled. The complainant cannot be penalized for the fault of the builder. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned and does not warrant any interference and accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed.

 

April 6th, 2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

N.K.