G.S. SOLANKI vs NARENDRA KUMAR BHELOTKAR & ANR.

Challenge in this revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ''the Act''), is to the order dated 23.09.2015 on the file of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ''the State Commission''). By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed the appeal in part, modifying the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, ''the District Forum'') and directing the Opposite Party to refund the booking amount of 21,000/- to each of the Complainants, with interest @ 12% p.a., and compensation of 10,000/-.

The Brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainants approached the Opposite Party and paid 21,000/- each, for purchase of two separate flats on the assurance that the construction of the building work would start on 01.01.2012. The Complainants pleaded that the Opposite Party neither provided the documents for proving the loan, nor started construction of the building, till 23.04.2012. They got issued a legal notice dated 24.04.2012, seeking refund of the amount, compensation and costs, but there was no response.

The Opposite Party contended that as per the brochure, the duration of the completion of the flats was from 01.01.2012 till 31.12.2013 and the Opposite Party had received the first permission on 09.11.2011 and that it was the Complainants who did not complete the paper-work and because of his age, could not secure the bank loan, for which, they cannot be made liable. It is also pleaded that the Complainants have booked two flats for commercial purpose.

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced, allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party to refund the booking amount of 21,000/- to each of the Complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from 19.10.2010 together with compensation of 25,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Party preferred an Appeal before the State Commission on the ground that the work was to commence only after relevant permissions and that only the booking amount was received from the Complainants and that it was not required to provide any documents for obtaining a housing loan.

The State Commission while concurring with the order of the District Forum, modified the order of the District Forum only with respect to compensation and reduced the same from 25,000/- to 10,000/-.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that processing charges had to be deducted and that only the booking amount was taken which cannot be construed as deficiency in service. The Complainants themselves had not adhered to the terms as they did not pay the rest of the instalments.

It is apparent on the face of the record that having accepted the booking amounts, the Opposite Party did not start the construction till permission was applied for, on 09.11.2012, despite the promise that the work would commence on 01.01.2012 as mentioned in the application form. The State Commission has also considered the fact that the Opposite Party did not file any documentary evidence to substantiate that they had given all the documents necessary for the Complainants to obtain a loan from the Bank. The material on record shows that the petitioner herein, without taking proper permissions, had started the process of booking, which itself construes deficiency of service.

Having regard to the fact that there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the fora below, that there is deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner herein, in not returning the booking amount of 21,000/- to each of the two Complainants and also taking into consideration that the interest awarded is a reasonable 12% p.a. and the compensation has been reduced to 10,000/-, it is not seen as a fit case to exercise our limited revisional jurisdiction warranting interference in the impugned order.

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine . No order as to costs.