M/S. EMERGING INDIA HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. ANIL SURIAL
LAWS(NCD)-2020-9-18
NCDRC
Decided on September 02,2020

M/S. Emerging India Housing Corporation Limited Appellant
VERSUS
Anil Surial Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This Revision Petition No. 2139 of 2018 by the petitioner/Opposite Party (OP hereafter) filed on 15.7.2016 seeks setting aside of the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('State Commission', for short) dated 11.04.2016. Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed Appeal No. 102 of 2016 against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's( District Forum hereafter) order dated 9.2.2016. The District Forum, in turn, upon a finding of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OP, had allowed the consumer complaint, CC 56/2015, directing OP to refund Rs. 16,09,600/- to the complainant, with 9% interest per annum, from the respective dates of deosit till actual payment, and in addition, also pay Rs. 50,000/- for mental tension etc., and Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the Complainant, attracted by the rosy picture portrayed by the OP, of the project "Emerging Heights-III", Sector-115, Greater Mohali, Kharar, Landran Road, Punjab, applied on 29.8.2011 and was allotted Flat No. B-103 having super area 1605 sq.ft. Opting for 'construction linked plan', complainant paid Rs. 16,09,600/- towards the total consideration, stated as Rs. 42,29,100/-, from the time of booking till 31.5.2013. Per the plaint, allotment letter was received only on 20.06.2012. Possession of the flat, indeed the completion of the project, had been promised within 28 months, with a grace period of 90 days from the date of booking i.e. within 31.03.2014. OP had assured the complainant that they had all the necessary approvals and permissions. However, when the complainant visited the site, he was shocked at not seeing any development activity. He visited the OP's office but got no answers, only assurances. Opposite Party raised demands for further payments on 24.10.2013 and 11.09.2014. The complainant again visited the site in 08.01.2015 and found that construction was only up to the foundation level. Complainant sought refund of his deposited money from the OP but to no avail and thereafter, filed a consumer complaint, CC 56/2015, before the District Forum.
(3.) This was contested by the OP through a written reply. It was contended that the complainant was not a consumer, as he had booked the flat for the purpose of investment to earn profits. It was further contended that the complainant was himself guilty of not having paid instalments on schedule as required by clause 5.4 of the terms and conditions (T and C) of the allotment. It was submitted that the complainant, per clause 6.2 of the T and C, had visited the site, made himself aware of the right, title and capacity of the OP, and so could not raise issues of non-construction now. It was argued that whatever actions the OP had taken was within the T and C of the allotment letter. It was also submitted that the complainant had not apprised the District Forum of the true state of affairs qua construction status.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.