SHALIMAR ESTATES PVT. LTD. vs MRS. RASHMI

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred to as District Forum) and we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum has rightly held that the respondents were entitled to the refund of earnest money deposited by them, which was @ 10% of the sale price. It appears from perusal of the impugned order that the respondents after applying for the allotment of the plot and depositing earnest money @ 10% of the sale price, read some news items appearing in the newspapers, which created doubt in their mind regarding the plots offered for allotment by the appellant Shalimar Estate (P) Limited and they felt dis-interested in pursuing their cases for depositing the balance 15% of the amount within the time provided under Condition (1)(ii), which has been extracted in the impugned judgment and order.

THE District Forum held that there was deficiency on the appellant in forfeiting the amount of earnest money and observed that the Government Housing Organisations like HUDA/PUDA/Chandigarh Housing Board allow the applicants refund of their earnest money even after the allotment of plot/flat but subject to deduction of 10% as processing charges from the earnest money. Consequently, the District Forum allowed the complaint to the extent that the refund of earnest money was directed to be made after deducting 10% amount from the same and along with interest @ 7% per annum from 1.3.2002 till its payment and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation. The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the default was in fact committed by the respondents/complainants who failed to deposit 15% of the sale price as required by Condition No. (1)(ii) within 30 days and even after the extended period of 60 days, which could be granted on the written request by the respondents. Hence, the 10% of earnest money deposited initially was forfeited and the respondents had no claim against such payment subsequently. It was mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that whatever clarifications were sought by the respondents were made by the appellant and the appellant were obliged to take further steps for allotment of plot by making a deposit of 15% of the sale price to make it a total deposit of 25%.

The photostat copies of documents including application form for allotment submitted by the respondents and letter issued to the respondents by the appellant calling upon them to deposit 15% of the amount within 30 days were placed on record. The photocopy of the letter sent by the company addressed to Shri R.K. Aggarwal, Managing Director of Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. was also placed on record and its perusal shows that the news item was published in the newspaper "Chandigarh News Line" dated 24.11.2001 containing a news item that "the plan floated by your company is not approved by the Haryana Govt. and necessary No objection Certificate from concerned departments has not been obtained".

REFERENCE was made to the news item published in "Hindustan Times, Chandigarh Line" dated 5.2.2002 and "Amar Ujala" dated 7.2.2002 wherein it was reported that unapproved construction of Golden Forest Resort falling within the territorial limits of Haryana had been demolished by the department of Town & Country Planning, Haryana. After referring to these news items, the respondents sought clarification of their doubts. It was enquired in Para 3 of the letter that if the plan of the company was a sanctioned plan duly approved by the Haryana Government then the copy of letters vide which approval/permission had been granted and N.O.C. had been obtained be supplied to them. The reply sent by the appellant is dated 21.2.2002 addressed to Mrs. Rashmi, respondent, the photocopy of which has been placed in appeal marked as 34 on the subject "Allotment of Plot of Shalimar Estate (Panchkula)". This letter was sent with reference to letter dated 12.2.2002 of Mrs. Rashmi received on 21.2.2002. Thereafter, reference was made to the news items referred to above. The reply by way of clarification reads as under : "Reference to point vi. The agreement of land is registered in the name of the Company in the office of Sub-Registrar, Barwala. Further reference to points vii, viii, ix and x, as the area of the proposed township is not comes under the Town Planning Department till date. Hence no permission or any N.O.C. is required."

IT was contended that after sending clarification, the appellant cannot be held deficient in rendering service to the complainants/respondents. A perusal of this letter will go to show that the details, which were called for were not furnished on the ground that the area of proposed township did not come under the Town Planning Department and no permission or No Objection Certificate was required. This reply, however, did not satisfy the respondents and they took the decision of not pursuing the allotment of the plots and applied for refund of the earnest money. Condition No. (1)(ii) of terms and conditions for allotment/sale of residential plots enables the appellant - Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. to extend further time up to 60 days on written request by the allotee and with further condition that interest @ 18% per annum will be charged. The appellant cannot sou motu assume that the respondents/complainants made a written request for extension of time of 60 days or up to 60 days and were prepared to pay interest @ 18% per annum. The condition was thus not fulfilled in this case and the appellant could not validly forfeit the amount of earnest money deposited by the respondents/complainants. In our view, the appellants were deficient in rendering service inasmuch as the amount of earnest money deposited with the respondents was evidently without any justifiable reasons. We are of the considered opinion that the District Forum has rightly disposed of the complaint and allowed refund to the extent mentioned above. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.