AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Counsel for the Applicant.
MA/76/2024 has been filed for recalling of order dated 29.07.2021 by which the Revision Petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution, as on that day the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner informed that he had no instructions. Now, this MA has been filed. It has been stated that the Petitioner was ill as such there was lack of communication between the previous Counsel and Petitioner and due to which, the statement has been given by the previous Counsel that he had no instruction. Cause shown is sufficient. Order dated 25.07.2023 is recalled. MA is allowed and Revision Petition is restored to its original number.
Heard Counsel for the Petitioner for the purposes of admission of the Revision Petition. The office has reported 280 days delay in filing the Revision Petition. The Petitioner has filed IA/7216/2022 for condoning the delay in filing the Revision Petition. In the IA, the delay has been properly explained. Subject to objection of the Opposite Party, we condone the delay and heard the Revision Petition for the purposes of the admission.
The above Revision Petition has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 29.07.2021 passed in FA/1319/2014 modifying the order of District Commission and directing to refund of Rs.496000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till date of refund.
The Complaint was filed on the allegation that the Opposite Party launched a Group Housing Project in the name Krishna Dham situated at Block No. 540, Paiki 1, Anand, in the year 2013. On coming to know about the project, the Complainant booked a flat on 27.05.2013 and till 04.09.2013, the Complainant had deposited total amount of Rs.540501/-. The Opposite Party has executed an agreement for sale dated 12.08.2013 in favour of the Complainant. For payment of balance consideration the complainant applied for loan to HDFC Bank, but, the papers which were supplied by the Opposite Party does not show that their lay out plan has been approved by the appropriate authority, therefore, the loan was not sanctioned. Therefore, the Complainant asked the Opposite Party to refund their amount, but, they denied refund and on this allegation the complaint was filed.
Before the District Forum, the Opposite Party filed their written reply and contested the matter. The Opposite Party took plea that on the basis of agreement, the Opposite Party has started construction on its part and has raised construction. If the complainant was not willing to pay the balance amount, he can take possession. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
The District Forum, however, did not accept the argument of the Appellant and by its judgment dated 02.04.2014 directed for refund of total amount of Rs.541501/- to the Complainant.The Petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 02.04.2014 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat. The State Commission after hearing the parties found that the total amount of Rs.521000/- was deposited by the Complainant towards the consideration, while the other amount was for other miscellaneous expenses for processing the loan amount etc. Therefore, after deduction of Rs.25000/-, as per condition of the brochure, the balance amount of Rs.496000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum has been directed to be refunded. Hence, this Revision Petition has been filed.
The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that loan of the Complainant was not sanctioned due to his low income, inasmuch as, after moving the loan application, the Complainant had lost his job and the Bank did not find sufficient income to sanction the loan. The allegation that loan application was rejected due to non approval of lay out plan was incorrect.
We have perused the order of the sanction of lay out plan which is dated 27.06.2014, while loan application was already rejected prior to this date, inasmuch as, the last deposit was made by the complainant on 04.09.2013, therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that loan was not sanctioned due to low income of the Complainant ,is not proved. The finding of the State Commission as well as District Forum that loan application has not been sanctioned due to non approval of lay out plan does not suffer from any illegality and no interference is acquired by this Commission. The State Commission has directed to refund of the money after forfeiture in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Petitioner. The Petitioner suffered no loss. The Revision Petition has no merit. It is dismissed.