Date of filing : 29/12/2014

Order no. 12

               The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant for the purchase of a flat applied to o.p. by paying Rs.200/- and after perusal of the prospectus the complainant decided to apply for one self contained residential flat without any parking space at a consideration price of Rs.16,20,000/-. The complainant at the time of depositing the application paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- by a demand draft. The complainant after two months received a letter from o.p. whereby o.p. informed the complainant that the inability of o.p. to allot any apartment in the 1^st lottery and the complainant was informed that if she was interested 2^nd lottery would be held in respect of other flat otherwise the deposited amount by the complainant would be returned. The complainant informed the o.p. that she was not interested for participating another lottery and she demanded the amount deposited by her with interest @ 12% per annum. The o.p. did not take any action in spite of receiving the letter of the complainant, subsequently the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice demanding the said amount, but no fruitful result was achieved for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

             The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that o.p. vide letter dt.7.4.11 informed the complainant that o.p. was unable to allot an apartment to the complainant in the 1^st lottery, however, o.p. further informed the complainant that if the complainant was interested she could be placed for another lottery for the identical flat for which she applied to which the complainant informed that she was not interested and she demanded the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest. On receiving the said information from the complainant, the o.p. wanted to pay the amount along with interest, but the complainant did not confirm the mode of payment and has not done the same. After receiving the lawyer’s letter o.p. sent a reply and wanted to refund the amount and also requested the complainant the mode of payment of the refund of the amount along with applicable interest, but the complainant did not reply, subsequently she filed this case. on the basis of the said fact o.p. stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and as such, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant had entered into an agreement with o.p. for purchasing a flat?
2. Whether the complainant paid an advance of Rs.50,000/-?
3. Whether the complainant wanted to get back the said amount from o.p.?
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
5. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant for the purchase of a flat applied to o.p. by paying Rs.200/- and after perusal of the prospectus the complainant decided to apply for one self contained residential flat without any parking space at a consideration price of Rs.16,20,000/-. The complainant at the time of depositing the application paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- by a demand draft. The complainant after two months received a letter from o.p. whereby o.p. informed the complainant that the inability of o.p. to allot any apartment in the 1^st lottery and the complainant was informed that if she was interested 2^nd lottery would be held in respect of other flat otherwise the deposited amount by the complainant would be returned. The complainant informed the o.p. that she was not interested for participating another lottery and she demanded the amount deposited by her with interest @ 12% per annum. The o.p. did not take any action in spite of receiving the letter of the complainant, subsequently the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice demanding the said amount, but no fruitful result was achieved for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation.

            Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. argued that o.p. vide letter dt.7.4.11 informed the complainant that o.p. was unable to allot an apartment to the complainant in the 1^st lottery, however, o.p. further informed the complainant that if the complainant was interested she could be placed for another lottery for the identical flat for which she applied to which the complainant informed that she was not interested and she demanded the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest. On receiving the said information from the complainant, the o.p. wanted to pay the amount along with interest, but the complainant did not confirm the mode of payment and has not done the same. After receiving the lawyer’s letter o.p. sent a reply and wanted to refund the amount and also requested the complainant the mode of payment of the refund of the amount along with applicable interest, but the complainant did not reply, subsequently she filed this case. on the basis of the said fact o.p. stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and as such, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

           Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant had entered into an agreement with o.p. for purchasing a flat and she also paid an advance of Rs.50,000/-. It is found from the materials on record that o.p. could not provide the flat to the complainant since the complainant’s name did not appear in the successful owners of the lottery. The complainant thereafter requested the o.p. for refund of the amount, but o.p. on some pretext or other wanted to know the mode of refund of the amount. In such manner o.p. delayed the matter for which the complainant had to sent lawyer’s notice and o.p. took the same plea and wanted to know the mode of payment. Whenever the complainant provided all her information in the application form, o.p. could have credited the amount in the account of the complainant or through NEFT the amount could have been transferred in the account of the complainant. But it is curious enough that o.p. did not send the amount in the account of the complainant or no draft was sent to the complainant at her residential address. Such act on the part of o.p. established the fact that there was deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

           that the CC No.777/2014 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @08% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.