AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Heard counsel for the petitioner.
The above revision has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 21.04.2023 whereby the condonation of delay application has been rejected and the appeal has been dismissed as time barred. The order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 28.09.2022 by which the petitioner has been directed to return the booking amount of Rs.337500/- deposited by the respondent along with interest.
The respondent filed CC/255/2021 alleging that the petitioner has launched a group housing project in the name of ‘TDI City Agra’ in the year 2005-2006 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. The respondent booked a flat and deposited booking amount of Rs.337500/- on 01.04.2005. After waiting for more than two years, when the respondent could not get any information, he requested the petitioner to cancel his booking and return his money vide letter dated 04.06.2007. However, the money was not returned nor any proper reply was given. Then the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint no. 806 of 2012. Later on, in pursuance of the order the appellate authority, present complaint has been filed.
The petitioner filed its written reply in which he has admitted booking of the flat and deposit of Rs.337500/- by the respondent. The petitioner took the plea that after initial deposit, the respondent has never approached him therefore, his booking was cancelled and his money was forfeited. The District Consumer Forum, by the impugned order found that after booking, there is nothing on record that the petitioner has ever raised any demand of further amount or issued any allotment letter. In the absence of any demand before the letter of the respondent dated 04.06.2007 for cancellation of the booking and allotment, the money cannot be forfeited. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to return the money with interest. We have examined the impugned judgments as well as the pleadings of the petitioner. In the written reply, the petitioner has nowhere stated that after booking, allotment letter has ever been issued to the respondent or any demand was made from him till the letter of the respondent for cancellation of the allotment. In the absence of any demand or allotment letter, the petitioner was not entitled for forfeiting the booking amount. The order of refund does not suffer from any illegality. Revision has no merit. It is dismissed.