DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.204/2016

Charu Hingorani

28A, Vijay Mandal Enclave,

Near IIT gate, New Delhi- 16                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ….Complainant

Versus

Uday Homz Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Office : JG-17, Khirki Extension,

Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi- 110017

         ….Opposite Party

             Date of Institution    : 12.07.2016

            Date of Order            : 03.12.2021

Coram:

Ms. Monika Aggarwal Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. Umesh Kr. Tyagi, Member

Order

Member – Kiran Kaushal

Briefly put, the Complainant Ms. Charu Hingorani on booking of an apartment was to receive a loyalty discount of Rs. 70,000/- from Uday Homz Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OP. OP provided a credit note to the Complainant in lieu of and as documentary evidence of this agreement on 23.01.2015.

            Believing the representation and assurances, Complainant booked an apartment in the project Super Tech at Capetown, Sector-74, Noida through OP. Complainant duly paid the initial booking amount as well as the installments and the entire amount in respect of the said unit and in return the developer/builder provided possession of the said apartment in September, 2015. However, OP failed to make the payment of Rs. 70,000/- the loyalty discount mentioned in the credit note dated 23.01.2015. As per the credit note the said amount was payable within 45 days after 45% of the cost of the property was paid to the developer.

            Complainant wrote various mails regarding the same to OP and even visited its office but OP paid no heed to her request. It is averred that OP repeatedly admitted that it had received its share of the commission for the booking of the Complainant, but failed to honour its commitment of paying
Rs. 70,000/- the loyalty discount as per the credit note given by OP.

Hence, aggrieved the Complainant approached this Commission for directions to OP to pay sum of Rs. 70,000/- together with interest @24% per annum, Rs. 15,000/- compensation towards mental agony and 2500/- towards cost of litigation.

            On receiving the notice, OP filed its written version submitting that OP issued a credit note dated 23.01.2015 and agreed to pay loyalty discount of
Rs. 70,000/- but it was to be paid as per the terms and condition of the credit note. As per the credit note, the Complainant was to acknowledge the receipt of this credit note on a duplicate copy and the Complainant’s acknowledgement should have reached the answering OP within 15 days from the date of its credit note otherwise it would become invalid. OP submits that the Complainant had wrongly interpreted the terms and conditions of the credit note. As per the terms and conditions, the said loyalty discount and credit note was payable to the Complainant after 45 days after 45% payment of the cost of property is paid to the developer, the builder buyer agreement is executed and respondent/OP receives the full commission from the developer. OP thus submits that the Complainant had failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the credit note.

             OP however, admits that the Complainant had been giving repeated reminders and requesting OP to make payment of Rs. 70,000/-. It is also stated that the Complainant came to OPs office and misbehaved with the company staff and also threatened them. OP thus denying any deficiency in service prays that the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs.

            Rejoinder and Evidence by affidavit is filed by the Complainant. Affidavit in evidence is filed by Sh. Raj Kumar authorized representative of OP. Written arguments are filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the submissions made by the Complainant and perused the material placed on record.

            It is Complainant’s case that she booked an apartment in the project Super Tech at Capetown, Sector-74, Noida through OP who is stated to be a property dealer. OP assured the Complainant that on booking of an apartment through him, Complainant would receive loyalty discount on the cost of the apartment, which worked out to Rs. 70,000/-. Accordingly OP gave a credit note to the Complainant as per documentary evidence of this agreement on 23.01.2015. The credit note issued by OP is annexed with the complaint which we mark as Mark ‘A’. OP in its written reply has admitted the factual matrix, however OP contends that the Complainant was to acknowledge the receipt of this credit note on a duplicate copy and Complainant’s acknowledgment should have reached the answering OP within 15 days from the date of its credit note, otherwise it becomes invalid. To which the Complainant in its replication has replied that the Complainant had handed over all the necessary documents, in addition to many verbal acknowledgments of acceptance of the transaction and the necessary credit note to OP and its agents. We are of the view there is no apparent reason for the Complainant not to have accepted and acknowledged the receipt of the credit note on the duplicate copy as not accepting the same would have denied the Complainant of a loyalty discount of Rs. 70,000/-, which no prudent man would do.

            The second issue raised by OP is that as per the terms and conditions of the credit note, loyalty discount was to be payable 45 days after the developer had received 45% of the cost of the property, builder buyer agreement had been executed and OP would have received the commission in full from the developer. It is seen from the material placed on record that the Complainant within one month of booking of the apartment had paid 95% of the total cost to the developer, within eight months 100% of the cost was paid and the Complainant got the possession of the apartment in question. We are, therefore, of the view that OP is trying to renege from the promise made to the Complainant by giving frivolous excuses.

Moreover, OP in its reply dated 23.05.2016 to the legal notice has admitted its liability to pay the loyalty discount subject to the condition that Complainant tenders apology for an alleged defamation. This Commission is of the opinion that OP cannot be a judge in its own cause and decide unilaterally that it was defamed and impose a penalty on the Complainant. For the alleged defamation OP is within its rights to approach an appropriate Forum but cannot deny the Complainant of its rightful claim to loyalty discount.

In light of the discussion above, we allow the complaint. OP is directed to pay the loyalty discount of Rs. 70,000/- as promised, with interest @7% from the date of filing of this complaint, additionally OP is directed to pay
Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation. Failing which OP will be liable to pay Rs. 70,000/- with interest @9% from the date of filing of the complaint.

Let the copy be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.