CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.481/2012
MS KHWAIRAKPAM SILAMANI DEVI
74 C POCKET E 4,
ROHINI SECTOR-7,
NEW DELHI-110085
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
1. M/S SUPERTECH LTD.,
1114, 11TH FLOOR, HEMKUT CHAMBER,
89 NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
ALSO AT:-
SUPERTECH HOUSE,
B-28-29, SECTOR-58,
NOIDA,
UP-201307
2. MR. R.K. ARORA,
CHAIRMAN & CMD,
M/S SUPERTECH LTD.,
1114, 11TH FLOOR, HEMKUT CHAMBER,
89 NEHRU PLACE,
3. SECRETARY,
NORTH EAST HOUSING SOCIETY,
C-73 VASANT VIHAR,
NEW DELHI
………….. RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:14.07.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
OP-1 is a Pvt. Limited Company of which OP-2 is Chairman. The case of the complainant is that OPs approached him for selling flat at Supertech Livingston, Crossing Republic at Ghaziabad which were to be constructed. OPs verbally promised complainant that housing loan will be arranged through their contacts. Accordingly complainant paid Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque as earnest money to OP-1. Flat No.2306 on 23rd floor was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 01.2.2010.
Complainant approached HDFC bank as per the instructions of OP and applied for housing loan. However bank did not release the housing loan for non-submission of compounding map by the OPs and for not having the permission for construction up to 30th floor. In fact no bank was willing to provide hosing loan to complaint for the reasons stated above. Complainant had written letters dated 17.2.11 and 25.3.11 for refund of earnest money of Rs.50,000/ and also sent legal notice dated 11.5.11. The aforesaid letters and legal notice were not replied by OPs. Instead of returning the amount OP-1 sent a demand notice vide letters dated 04.2.11 and 23.11.11 claiming for remaining amount of the flat. In the month of November 2011, complainant received a call from HDFC bank informing that the dispute between OP-1 and the bank has been resolved so loan can be sanctioned. Complainant decided to take the flat in question and ultimately, the bank vide letter dated 21.1.12 approved the loan for the amount of Rs13.5 lakhs. Immediately complainant contacted OPs for payment of the amount. However complainant was shocked and surprised as she was informed that the allotment of the fat was cancelled by OP-1. Immediately complainant visited office of OP-1 and contacted concerned persons but they were not ready to speak to complainant. OPs were not ready to settle the matter and instead demanded an interest of Rs.7.5 lakhs. Complainant stated that it was illegal on the part of OP to cancel the flat. Complainant has prayed for refund of earnest money of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and Rs.5 lakh towards compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation charges.
OPs in the written submissions took the plea that the present complaint is not maintainable as it is the complainant who has violated and breached the provision of allotment letter dated 01.12.2010. It is stated that as per that allotment letter the total cost of the flat was 17 lakhs and 10% was to be paid by 19.12.2009. Another 85% cost of the flat should have been paid by 19.1.2010. However complainant failed to pay the aforesaid amount and only paid Rs.50,000/-. There was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is stated that the sanction and disbursal of the loan was not the condition precedent for timely payment of the instalment as per terms and conditions of allotment letter dated 01.2.2010. It is stated that OP-1 as a special favour has offered the complainant in facilitating in getting the loan sanctioned though it is not the duty of the OP-1 to get the loan sanctioned. It is further stated that the contention of complainant that the bank did not release the fund is falsified from fact that many other customers have availed the bank loan from various other banks. It is complainant who has committed breach of the provision of allotment letter dated 01.12.2010. There is no deficiency on part of OPs hence complainant is not entitled for relief claimed.
After filing of the written submissions, OPs were proceeded ex parte. OPs did not file their evidence. Complainant filed affidavit in support of her evidence which remained unchallenged. It is significant to note that complainant has specifically stated in the complaint that OPs verbally promised complainant that housing loan will be arranged through their contacts. This fact is not denied by OP in the WS rather OP in the WS stated that OP-1 as a special favour has offered the complainant in facilitating in getting the loan sanctioned. It is evident from the reply of the OPs that they had agreed to get the loan sanctioned from the bank for the complainant. It is significant to note that the bank did not sanction the loan as there was no permission with OP for construction of the aforesaid building up to 30th floor and this fact was not denied by OPs in WS. Subsequently when the dispute was resolved between bank and OPs, the bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.13.5 lakhs but OPs did not accept the payment rather informed the complainant that the allotment has been cancelled. Despite writing several letters OPs have not refunded the amount of the complainant and even did not inform the complainant that her allotment has bee cancelled. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
OP is directed to refund to complainant Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from 19.12.2000 till the amount is paid. OP is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
