SOUTHERN PENINSULA HOUSING LIMITED vs VINCENT RAJKUMAR

THE complainant''s case is as follows: THE complainants approached the opposite party and booked a flat in the second floor facing road side in one of its projects namely "Vaigai" at Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Madras. THE complainants paid an advance of Rs. 25,000/- to the opposite party and a receipt dated 3.5.1996 was issued. THEre was no communication from the opposite party for a long time. In September, 1996, the complainants were prepared to pay Rs. 2 lakhs towards cost of the balance. THE opposite party, however, without informing the actual progress of the project simply cancelled the allotment of road facing flat to the complainants. THE opposite party has also not refunded the advance of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

THE opposite party pleaded as follows: THE receipt of advance is admitted. THE value of the flat was Rs. 15 lakhs. THE complainant failed to make periodical payments towards purchase of the flat. THEy also changed their address without intimating to the opposite party. That the complainant was ready to pay Rs. 2 lakhs in September is not true. As further payment towards cost of the flat was not made, the agreement was cancelled and a cheque for Rs. 26,366/- was sent to the complainant and the cheque was returned unserved. THEre was no deficiency in service. The lower forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.

The complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as advance towards cost of the flat in the second floor, facing the road in a project undertaken by the opposite party at Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Madras. The receipt shows that the opposite party had agreed to allot a road facing flat. After this, nothing had happened. According to the complainants, there was no further communication and in the month of September, 1996, the complainants offered to pay Rs. 2 lakhs but the opposite party without informing the complainants cancelled the agreement. There are no records produced by the opposite party to sow that he informed the complainants about the commencement of the construction and the stage of construction and demanding further amounts by way of instalments from the complainants. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the deposit, no full-fledged agreement had been entered into between the parties. From Ex. A 2 we find that the 1st complainant mentions about the payment of Rs. 25,000/- as advance stating that it was received by the opposite party to provide a road side flat. He has further mentioned about the meeting of the opposite party on 5.9.1996 that the details regarding the payment and that he came ready with cheques. While so, the opposite party refused to receive the cheque or discuss about the allotment of the flat. As against these documents, the opposite party has not produced any records to show that it is no so. On the other hand in their letter they have stated that they have indicated the terms of the payment and requested them to pay the balance and they took efforts to contact in the last 4 months and they were in vain. The advance was paid on 3.5.1996. The letter of the complainant was issued on 6.9.1996 to which the reply was sent on 13.9.1996. It is stated that for a period of 4 months they were not able to contact the complainants. If really what they have stated in the letter Ex. B1 is correct, one would expect them to have taken steps to find out the correct address and send a notice to him. If really they have commenced construction and have fixed any schedule of payment, it is not known why they have kept quiet for 4 months without sending any letter. If really what they say is true one would expect to send a letter of demand if those letters of demands had been returned, perhaps then it could have been open to the opposite party to say that they have sent demands, but they have not been responded to and that their address was not known to them. without doing anything, to say now suddenly that they intimated but the where abouts of the complainants was not known to them is really a cock and bull story. Though in the version, they have stated that they have made attempts; what are the attempts, they have not informed. It is obvious, therefore, that having agreed to allot a road side flat and having received Rs. 25,000/-, they are trying to go back on their word. There was also nothing to show that they have commenced the construction immediately thereafter. A person who has paid an advance of Rs. 25,000/- for residing a project of flat, would not suddenly melt in a thin air. He would be only anxious either to get the flat or at least to get back the money and at least for that purpose definitely he would have made visits or made known his whereabouts. Of course, what was paid was only an advance and no agreement, as such, had been entered into between the parties. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that the process of rendering of service would commence when the applications are invited for allotment of plots and in response to that offer, persons applied for allotment of the same and made the necessary deposits. The Monpolies and Restrictive Trade Practice Commission has held that when allotment is not made and when the person who had applied for the allotment, request for refund, the other party is bound to refund the amount with interest at 12% per annum. Therefore, in the above circumstances, it is clear that the appeal is devoid of merits.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 250/- confirming the order of the lower forum. Time for compliance: Two months. Appeal dismissed.