- (1.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the complainants is that OP -1 through its channel Partner i.e. OP -2 approached them for selling apartment measuring 1300 sq. ft. in the Housing Complex named Unitech Habitat situated at Plot No.9, Ph -II, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (UP). The price of the apartment was quoted to be Rs.39,65,000/ - approximately. It is further the case of complainants that OP further assured them that this was a pre -launch of the complex and the floor area of the apartment would not be in any case more than 1300 sq. ft. It was further averred that the complainants paid a sum of Rs.5 Lacs vide cheque dated 14.6.2006 and booked the apartment with a specific understanding given by the OPs that the apartment should not be more than 1300 sq. ft. and the price of the same would be Rs.39,65,000/ -. As per the complainants, they paid a total sum of Rs.10,52,730/ - vide three different cheques, which were duly accepted by the OPs and for which receipts were also issued. It was further averred that the complainants received allotment letter dated 20.11.2006 through OP No.2 stating that they had been allotted apartment No.604, Floor 6th, area of which was 1693 sq. ft. and the price of the same was Rs.54,60,941/ -. It was next averred by the complainants that they requested OPs to get the allotment letter changed and in turn, OP No.2 represented that this was only a formality and the allotment letter would be changed subsequently. Thereafter, as per the complainants, they approached OP No.1 for refund of the amount deposited. Subsequently, on 2.7.2007, OP No.2 issued a letter giving no objection for the refund of the amount and the complainants were told to approach OP No.1, who kept delaying the payment. Upon this, the complainants served legal notice dated 14.9.2007 for the refund of the amount but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid acts of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainants had filed the complaint.
(2.) THE version of OP No.1 is that the complainants were fully aware that the super area of the said apartment was 1693 sq. ft. and the same was specifically mentioned on the receipts dated 29.6.2006, 15.9.2006 and 6.10.2006 annexed as Annexures R -1 to R -3 issued by the OP to the complainants. It was next pleaded that along with letter dated 31.8.2006, it also sent two sets of allotment letters containing the terms and conditions of allotment, which were duly executed by the complainants as well as OPs on 20.11.2006. As per this OP, the said allotment letter apart from various terms and conditions of allotment, specifications, payment plan etc. also mentioned the super area of the allotment as 1693 sq. ft. It was asserted by OP No.1 that the complainants signed the terms and conditions of allotment and did not raise any grievance or objection. As per OP No.1, an amount of Rs.33,95,478/ - was still due as consideration and the complaint was an afterthought to wriggle out of their liability to pay under the agreed terms of allotment and as per schedule opted by the complainants. Pleading no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
(3.) THE version of OP No.2 is that it had all along been cooperating with the complainants regarding refund of the alleged amount only out of goodwill and hence there had been no misrepresentation on its part. OP No.2 had further pleaded that it was not responsible for any damages/compensation and the same was within the domain of OP No.1. The learned District Forum while dealing with the contention of the complainants that they booked a flat of 1300 sq. ft. with OP No.1 through OP No. 2 but subsequently allotment letter for 1693 sq. ft. was issued to them, referred to the application form (Annexure R -4) filled by the complainant wherein the area of the flat was mentioned to be 1693 sq. ft. The learned District Forum also referred to the Receipts (Annexure R -1 to R -3) issued to the Complainants with respect to the deposits made by them wherein the area of the flat was mentioned to be 1693 sq. ft. In view these documents, the learned District Forum turned down the contention of the complainants that they booked a flat of 1300 sq. ft. with OP No.1 through OP No.2.;