Heard learned counsel for  both the sides.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case   of the complainants,  in nutshell is that the  OPs  have floated a scheme inviting the application from the desirous persons to purchase the flat in the apartment namely  “Gulmohor Court” and the complainant being influenced by the advertisement applied to purchase a flat on 23.06.2020. It is alleged that the OP allotted the complainant a 3 BHK  apartment bearing no.203  at the second floor of Block-A measuring an area of 1690  Sft. The complainant allegedly has paid a sum of  Rs.5,00,000/- through account payee cheques, one for Rs.3,00,000/- and the other for Rs.2,00,000/-  on dtd.23.06.2020 and 27.06.2020 respectively.  The cost of the  flat was Rs,61,05,000/-. It is argued that  the cost would be paid phase wise.  On 02.09.2020 the complainant received a letter from the OP to make further payment and also  it was followed   by a reminder through mail  on 19.11.2020. The complainant asked OP to allow  few days time  because  her family members were suffering from Covid-19 but the OP   had cancelled her allotment unilaterally  and intimated to the complainant on 26.11.2020. The OP also sent mail on 07.01.2021 to the complainant in this regard. Finding no other way the complainant approached  the OP to get refund of the deposited amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Since there is no any refund of money, the complainant alleging deficiency in service filed the complaint case.

4.                  The OP   filed written version stating that  the complaint is not  maintainable and there is no cause of action to file the case. The OP submitted that  there is  deliberately suppression of several facts and  the complaint petition is barred by limitation. It is averred that 10 % of the booking amount is to be forfeited as cancellation fee and for the GST paid. Therefore, the complainant is only entitled to get back Rs.4,50,000/-. However, the OP submitted that  complainant is not entitled to get refund  because for cancellation of flat, same was not being sold. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.  

5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                    “ The case is decreed on contest against the Ops who are found to be  jointly and severally liable  here in this case The Ops are thus directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as admitted by them through their written version to the complainant  alongwith interest thereon @ 12 % per annum  with effect from 7.1.2021 till the  total amount is quantified. The Ops are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  to the complainant towards the mental agony and harassment as caused by them due to their deficiency in service and also to meet the litigation expenses of the complainant to the tune of  Rs.25,000/-. This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

6.                  Learned counsel for the appellant  submitted that    learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the fact  that there is agreement to pay the cost of the flat at different occasion but the complainant defaulted in payment  as per payment schedule for which  the allotment of flat has been cancelled and the amount  has been forfeited. But learned District Forum, without  application of judicial mind has passed the impugned order  which should be   set-aside by allowing the appeal.

7.         Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant has requested for  few days to the next dues  as per  the payment schedule because  of health problem. But the OP, without waiting giving  time cancelled the flat in question. Therefore, he has asked for refund of money  but the OP turned  deaf ear to refund the money. Therefore, learned District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order. So, he supports the impugned order.

8.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties,   perused the DFR and impugned order.

9.                It is admitted fact that the OP has   floated  advertisement for sale of flats  under the name  and style as “Gulmohar Court” to the desirous  persons.  It is not in dispute that the complainant has  booked a flat   of Rs.5,00,000/- and ready to pay further amount. It is not in dispute that she was allotted  a 3 BHK flat bearing no.203 at the second floor of Block-A  measuring an area of 1690 sqft.  by the OP.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant got notice from the OP to pay further installment but she has asked for time. When the complainant asked for time on humanitarian groundn the OP has  cancelled  the allotment of flat after few days, Not only this but also the OP refused to refund the money, thus the act of the OP is gross deficiency in service. In this regard, we agree with  the finding of the learned District Commission.

10.              So far refund of money is concerned, the OP should refund the entire amount of Rs.5,00,000/- when there is no  justification for cancellation of  flat in question. 10 % deduction from  payment  is also not  good decision of OP for the reason that he has cancelled flat unilaterally. In such circumstances, we hereby modified the impugned order  by directing the OP to pay Rs.6,50,000/-  including the refund of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which the entire impugned order will be revived.  

                  Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

                  DFR be sent back forthwith.