M2k Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs Ashu Vasudev

COMPLAINANTS/respondents booked one unit/apartment with the petitioner in its Residential Housing Project at Dharuhera known as "M2K Country Heights" and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 vide cheque on 18.11.2006 along with Advance Registration Application. The remaining amount in respect of the unit/apartment was to be deposited by the respondents as per the Schedule given in the Agreement entered into between the parties. That petitioner sent an Application Form to the respondents on 21.11.2006 wherein respondents were asked to apply for regular allotment but respondents did not apply for the same due to some unilateral conditions contained in the Application Form which were not acceptable to the respondents. It was further stated that respondents were provisionally allotted Apartment No. B-508 in "M2K Country Heights" at Dharuhera on 10.8.2007 without obtaining their consent. That the tentative area of the house was 1250-1350 square feet @ Rs. 1,495 per square feet. That respondents made repeated requests to the petitioner for removing the unilateral conditions contained in the Application Form as the same were against the Conditions of Agreement entered into between the parties and also to make the allotment of house No. B-508 regular in the name of respondents as it was made, provisional earlier, which were not acceded to by the petitioner. Thus, being aggrieved, respondents/complainants filed the Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ''the District Forum'').

ON being served, petitioner filed its Written Statement denying the allegations made in the Complaint and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

DISTRICT Forum, after taking into consideration, the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, disposed of the Complaint with the direction that the area of house shall not be increased further. Petitioner was directed to complete the construction work within a reasonable period and not to change the apartment number of the unit/apartment allotted to the respondents. Respondents were directed to pay the balance amount in respect of the unit/apartment allotted to them as per the Schedule already agreed. The operative part of the Order reads as under: "(6). A sum of Rs. Five lac has been deposited by the complainant with the respondents. Apartment B-508 has been allotted. Tentative area has already been fixed as 1425 square feet. Thus, area shall not be increased further and the respondents shall complete the construction work within a reasonable period. Apartment number so allotted shall not be changed. Complainant shall be bound to pay the amount as per schedule already agreed."

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed the Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short ''the State Commission''), which has been dismissed in limine by the State Commission.

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the State Commission, petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition.

COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.

THE Revision Petition came up for hearing on 12.3.2010. On the contention raised by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner was to construct 9 towers and the respondents were allotted apartment No. 508 in Tower-B but due to economic slump, petitioner is now building only 5 towers and is prepared to give a flat in any of these towers which are located at the same site and of the same measurement and at the cost which has been agreed upon, Notice on Admission was issued to the respondents. Respondents have been served.

COUNSEL appearing for the respondents states that respondents are not prepared to accept any flat other than the one which had already been allotted to them. It was submitted that in case, the petitioner was not in a position to give apartment No. 508 in Tower B, then, the petitioner be directed to refund the amount already deposited by the respondents along with interest.

IT is not disputed before us that respondents, in all, had paid Rs. 5,00,000 for the purchase of apartment No. 508 in Tower B. Petitioner has given up its plan to build 9 towers but has agreed to give a flat in any of the 5 towers located at the same site and of the same measurement and at an old price, which is not acceptable to the respondents. Under the circumstances, we are left with no option but to direct the petitioner to refund the amount deposited by the respondents but without any interest. We are not awarding interest in the present case because respondents have not accepted the offer made by the petitioner to accept a flat of same measurement in any of the towers at an old price, which, in our opinion, is quite fair and reasonable offer.

ACCORDINGLY, the Orders passed by the Fora below are modified and the petitioner is directed to refund the amount deposited by the respondents within 8 weeks from today. The Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.