MADHU BALA vs VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD.

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 27.5.1999, passed by District Forum No. V in Complaint Case No. 698/98 - entitled Ms. Madhu Bala v. M/s. Vardhman Properties Ltd.

THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum averring that believing the representation made by the officials of the respondents, the appellant had booked a commercial space with the respondents in Plot No. 4 LSC, - C.U. Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi and had deposited the initial 10% booking amount, amounting to Rs. 55,440/- With the respondent. It was averred that as the construction was not completed in time and the appellant was in urgent need of office space, she made a request to the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 55,440/-. It was stated that instead of refunding the amount, the respondent started sending demand letters claiming huge amount on account of interest besides instalments. It was also alleged in the complaint by the appellant that the respondent informed the appellant that 25% of the cost price of the unit stood forfeited and the appellant could claim the balance amount after showing the receipt. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, it was prayed that the respondent be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 55,440/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of realisation till payment to the appellant. THE appellant had also claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- plus a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as costs of litigation. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was contested by the respondent who filed a written statement/written version stating therein that the terms and conditions of the booking of the commercial space were explained to the appellant and as per the terms and conditions the appellant had to pay the cost price of the space booked in nine monthly instalments and in the case of cancellation of booking by the appellant or cancellation of allotment due to non-payment of instalments, 25% of the total cost of the unit was to be forfeited. It was also stated in the written statement/written version that as the appellant failed to pay the instalments, the respondents were fully justified in forfeiting the amount in question.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the appellant failed to pay the amount of instalments and as per the terms and conditions of the booking, 25% of the total cost was to be forfeited, on account of non-payment of instalments. It has also been held that in terms of the conditions of the booking, agreed upon between the parties, the respondent was well within its right to forfeit the amount in question. It has been further held by the learned District Forum that the construction of the building in question was completed by the respondent much before the stipulated period and the shops/ offices were handed over to the concerned purchasers and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In our opinion, in the given facts, the order being impugned in the present proceedings, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. As a matter of fact, in the given facts, the default is on the part of the appellant in not paying the instalments in time and due to the default on the part of the appellant the respondent was well within its rights to take action for the forfeiture of the amount in question in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties. For the above reasons, in our opinion the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismisssal. Accordingly, the same dismissed in limine. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.