RAMA REALTIES & ANR. vs ANDARSINGH S CHAUHAN

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.

2758 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/06/2015 in Appeal No.

726/2015 of the State Commission Gujarat) 1.

RAMA REALTIES & ANR.

AT.

NEAR LAKSHMI PURA, SAMIYALA VADODARA- PADRA ROAD, TAL.

DIST.

VADODARA GUJARAT 2.

SNEHAL PATEL GREEN LAND TOWNSHIP, AT NEAR LAKSHMIPURA, SAMIYALA VADODARA- PADRA ROAD, TAL.

VADODARA GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1.

ANDARSINGH S CHAUHAN AT, C-141, URJA NAGAR, NTPC TOWNSHIP, AT POST JANOR,DIST BHRUCH GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE J.M.

MALIK,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR.

S.M.

KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.

Akhil Dave, Advocate For the Respondent : Dated : 14 Jul 2016 ORDER JUSTICE J.M.

MALIK 1.

Sh.

Andarsingh S.

Chauhan, the complainant, paid a sum of Rs.

8,50,000/- on 03.07.2011 for booking of plot No.27 to Rama Realties, the OP1.

The said amount was paid by cheque.

The complainant, further contended that he had paid a sum of 1,00,000/- in cash, as well, total being Rs.9,50,000/-.

According to the complainant, the OPs assured him that he would execute the Sale Deed on getting non-agriculture permission within three months and thereafter necessary agreement and plot file would be handed over to the complainant.

It was also agreed that the OPs would be paid another sum of Rs.9,50,000/-, by the complainant, within three months’, as agreed.

2.

According to the complainant, the petitioners/OPs could not get the sanction within three months.

The plot was not allotted in his favour.

On 23.07.2012, the complainant issued a legal notice for cancellation of the plot.

It evoked no response from the OPs.

Thereafter, the complaint was filed before the District Forum, on 02.11.2012, wherein the complainant demanded Rs.9,50,000/- with interest and further demanded Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and Rs.15,000/- for costs.

3.

According to the petitioners / OPs, they received the permission on 24.05.2012, i.e.

2012, i.e., after 10 months of their agreement for executing the receipt.

The OPs had admitted having received a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- by cheque.

4.

The District Forum came to the conclusion that the OP was liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., w.e.f.

03.07.2011, against booking of plot.

The OPs was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- for mental and physical stress and Rs.3,000/- for expenses.

5.

The State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the OPs, and passed the following order :- “1.

The appeal, partly allowed.

Order of Ld.

Forum, Vadodara is amended as below : The original complainant paid Rs.8,50,000/- for plot booking and deducting three months interest from that day and calculating interest for 3 years, 8 months and 11 days, i.e.

Rs.2,82,650/- thus, totalling Rs.11,32,650/- are paid to complainant by present appellant within two months of order and rest part of the order of Ld.

Forum remains the same.

There is no order as to costs”.

6.

We have heard the counsel for the petitioners/OPs at the time of admission of this case.

He submits that his client is liable for refund of Rs.8,50,000/-, but no other amount.

He contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay the interest.

He argued that the period of three months of receiving the permission was not fixed.

7.

We are not impressed by his arguments.

The first deficiency on the part of OPs is that the terms and conditions of the plot were not informed to the complainant, though, a huge amount of Rs.8,50,000/- was received by them.

8.

In a case titled Samarth Associates Engineers & Builders & Ors.

Vs.

Ramesh Ramachandra Lokhande, RP No.4729/2012, decided on 10.09.2013, this Bench passed the following order :- “7.

The following deficiencies are apparent on the face of the record.

First of all, it is not understood why the agreement was not executed at or about the execution of receipt of Rs.25,000/-.

In Belaire Owners Association Vs.

DLF Ltd. & Ors., Case No. , Case No.19/2010, vide supplementary order dated 03.01.2013, the Competition Commission of India, held :- 1.The terms of the agreement to be entered into with the allottee were never shown to the allottee at the time of booking of the apartment.

These terms and conditions of the agreement were prepared and framed by the company unilaterally without consulting the buyer.

Once the company had already received considerable amount from the applicants/buyers, this agreement was forced upon the allottees and the allottee had no option but to sign the agreement, as otherwise the agreement provided for heavy penalties and deduction from the money already deposited by the allottees with the company, which itself was an abuse of dominance.

The appropriate procedure would have been that a copy of the agreement which DLF proposed to enter with the allottee should have been made available to the applicants at the time of inviting applications”.

9.

The Hon’ble Apex in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.

36667-68 of 2013, titled Samarth Associates Engineers & Builders & Ors.

Ramesh Ramachandra Lokhande, decided on 16.12.2013, dismissed the said Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos., filed by the petitioners/OPs.

10.

Had the terms and conditions been made in ‘black and white’, it would have been easy to find out the truth and also it would have been easy to find out who is telling the truth, whether, it was three months or ten months.

However, this is deficiency on the part of the OPs.

11.

The second deficiency on the part of the petitioners/ OPs is that, without getting the sanction, why did the OPs start allotting the plot in favour of the allottees.

Nobody knew when the OPs would get the sanction or when the application for sanction might be denied.

Thirdly, although, the permission was received on 24.05.2012, yet, the petitioner did not send the response to the notice sent on 23.07.2012 which shows the malafide intention on the part of the petitioners/OPs. oners/OPs.

The OPs should have immediately sent the response and given the time of allotting the plot.

12.

The OPs had been enjoying the fruits of the amount paid by the complainant.

Consequently, we dismiss the revision petition, with costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, under Section 26 of the C.P.

Act, 1986, which be paid to the complainant, within 30 days, along with decretal amount, from the date of receipt of copy of this order, otherwise, after expiry of the said date, the said amount, i.e., the decretal amount and costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, will carry interest @ 10% p.a., till their realisation. ......................J J.M.

MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ......................

DR.

KANTIKAR MEMBER