VIJAY KUMAR MADAN, PROP.MADAN BUILDERS vs BODH RAJ CHANDNA

THIS Appeal has been directed against the Order dated 11.11.93 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Case No. C-583 of 1992. The appellant herein, a builder and promoter, was the respondent before the State Commission.

FACTS of the case lie in a narrow compass. With reference to an advertisement in the newspaper by the appellant-respondent about construction of shop in his proposed project in Gurgaon, the complainant had booked in May, 89 a shop on the first floor measuring 279 sq. ft. for a total cost of Rs. 1,67,400/- and deposited in instalments amount aggregating to Rs. 1,34,520/- till July, 1991. In March, ''92 the complainant intimated that he was allotted a shop in the ground floor as per his request in lieu of the one in the first floor and was also asked to pay an additional amount of Rs. 45,980/-. On the complainant''s denial about any such request by him, the appellant-respondent withdrew the demand. However, he again raised this additional demand in November ''92. Further, the complainant found that the appellant respondent was offering him only 150 sq. ft. instead of 279 sq. ft. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission praying that the appellant-respondent be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,34,520/-alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for mental agony and harassment. It was the respondent builder''s contention before the State Commission that what was agreed upon was to provide 279 sq. ft. super area. While examining the question whether the complainant agreed to purchase 279 sq. ft. super area or actual area from the respondent, the State Commission found that there was no written agreement between the parties. In his application for allotment of space, the total area sought to be purchased by the complainant was shown as approximately 279 sq. ft. @ Rs. 600/- per sq. ft. The application form did not mention that the allotment was regarding 279 sq. ft. super area. The State Commission observed that in various letters written to the complainant subsequently by the respondent builder and also in receipts issued by him, the area was shown as 279 sq. ft. and there was no mention of super area. No evidence was produced by the appellant-respondent before the Commission to show that he agreed to provide 279 sq. ft. super area. The State Commission, therefore, came to the conclusion that the complainant had agreed to purchase approximately 279 sq. ft. actual area and not 279 sq. ft. supra area as alleged by the appellant respondent. In the light of this the State Commission directed the appellant respondent to refund Rs. 1,34,520/- with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of payment alongwith costs of Rs. 2,000/-. In the appeal before us, the appellant-respondent had not made any new point except that it was agreed to give only 279 sq. ft. super area. We have heard the Counsel for both sides and perused the records. Available records show that the complainant (respondent herein) had been making payments for 279 sq. ft. of actual area whereas the appellant was offering him 150 sq. ft. of covered area. There is, however, no mention in the documents produced that as against the payment made for the allotment of 279 sq. ft. the complainant would be allotted only 150 sq. ft. of covered area for the shop. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly we confirm the order of the State Commission and dismiss the appeal. No costs.