1. The challenge in this Revision Petition is to the order dated 02.03.2016, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 915/2015, Ansal Housing and Constructions Ltd. & Anr. vs. Rajesh Kumar, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra, dated 04.02.2015, in Consumer Complaint No. 146/2012, filed by the present respondent Rajesh Kumar, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.
2. The complainant/respondent Rajesh Kumar filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging that the petitioner/OP Builder Company published an advertisement inviting people to invest in their housing project namely ‘Ansals Herman City’ at Kurukshetra in response to which, he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- through cheque with the petitioners/OPs vide receipt no. 476707 dated 10.09.2011. He was allotted plot no. D-140 in the said project, costing Rs. 7,65,000/- @ Rs. 5,000/- per sq. yard. However, despite approaching the OPs many times with a request to receive the balance amount and give possession of the plot in question, he was not delivered the possession of the same. He sent a legal notice to them, asking them to deliver the said plot, but still, there was no response from them. The complainant filed the consumer complaint, seeking directions to the OPs to deliver possession of the said plot no. D-140, after receiving the balance amount of consideration from him and also to pay him a sum of Rs. 1 lac as damages for harassment etc.
3. In reply, the OPs stated in their written statement before the District Forum that a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was deposited by the complainant for tentative booking of the plot, but he was required to complete several other formalities, which he never fulfilled. The allotment of plot no. D-140 was only provisional and hence, the complainant is not a consumer under law.
4. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments made by the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OPs to deliver possession of plot no. D-140 at Ansal Herman City, Kurukshetra after receiving the balance amount from the complainant and also directed the OPs to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for unfair trade practice and harassment. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OPs challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the petitioner/OP is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition.
5. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the orders passed by the consumer fora below were not in accordance with law, because the complainant had just deposited a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- with them and then never turned up to fulfil the formalities. The consumer fora below had, therefore, taken an erroneous view that the possession of the plot in question should be handed over to the complainant. The learned counsel stated that no agreement had been executed between the parties and the OPs had not advertised any rate.
6. I have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.
7. A perusal of the documents placed on record by the petitioners/OPs reveals that as per a receipt issued by the petitioners/OPs, a sum of Rs. 1.25 lakhs was received by them on 10.09.2011 from the complainant vide receipt no. 476707 for plot no. D-140 at their project vide cheque no. 149987 dated 09.09.2011. The petitioners/OPs have stated in their own reply before the District Forum that the complainant approached their Kurukshetra office, where one of their executives explained to him the price and procedure for booking the plot, and after understanding all the issues, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 1.25 lakhs for tentative booking of the plot. The petitioners/OPs also stated in their reply that a provisional allotment of plot no. D-140 was made to the complainant. It is very clear from these facts that the petitioners/OPs accepted money from the complainant and allotted a specific plot to him and hence, it was their duty to have an agreement executed and lay down the terms and conditions of the allotment, after issuing a formal allotment letter to him. It is definitely an example of unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioners/OPs that despite receiving money from the complainant, they have not taken any further steps for formalising the said allotment. The petitioners/OPs have no right to accept money from the general public and then enjoy it merrily without taking any further action in the matter and when the consumer complaint is filed, they come out with an argument that the complainant had no right to agitate the matter before the consumer fora. This kind of practice on the part of the builders/developers is highly undesirable.
8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that there was a specific publication in the media dated 25.11.2011, which says that the proposed project was located on the G.T.Road, NH-1 and only 1 km from the main Pipli Chowk. The plots were offered from Rs. 7.83 lacs onwards for 6 marla plot upto 1 kanal plots. In response to the said publication, the complainant went to their office and deposited the amount of Rs. 1.25 lakhs against the receipt for the requested plot. Vide orders of the District Forum, the peti
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
tioners/OPs have simply been directed to handover the possession of the said plot to him and that also, after accepting the balance amount for the said plot. There is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the said order by any stretch of imagination. The petitioners have not shown any valid ground as to why they do not want to handover the possession of the said plot to the complainant. In the light of these facts, it is held that there is no force in the Revision Petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the consumer fora below upheld, with no order as to costs.