RAN VIJAY SINGH vs Puri Constructions Pvt Ltd

THE complainant booked a three BHK apartment with the opposite party No.1 -Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. through its channel partner Mr. Gaurav Mehra. The case of the complainant is that a cheque dated 06 -12 -2012 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/ - was handed over by him to Mr. Gaurav Mehra, during pre -launch of the project called Emerald Bay situated in Sector 104 of Gurgaon. Later on, another cheque of Rs.2,50,000/ - was issued by the complainant to the builder.

THE case of the complainant is that during discussion he was told that all the towers in the project were open for booking and, therefore, he had given preference for allotment of a flat in Tower -A4. However, instead of allotting a flat in Tower -A4, the opposite party allotted a flat to the complainant in Tower -A3 vide its letter dated 11 -02 -2013. This is also the case of the complainant that thereafter he made further payments to the builder from time to time. The grievance of the complainant is only to the extent that he wants allotment of a flat in Tower -A4, whereas the opposite party No.1 -Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. has allotted a flat to him in Tower -A3. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission, seeking a direction for allotment of a flat in Tower -A4 along with damages to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/ - and Rs.50,000/ - towards litigation expenses. He has also sought Rs.10,000/ - per visit for travelling and Rs.35,000/ - towards cost of the notice sent to the opposite party -builder.

DURING the course of hearing we asked the learned counsel for the complainant to show to us any document either from the builder -Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. or from its alleged channel partner Mr. Gaurav Mehra promising to allot a flat in Tower -A4. Nu such document, however, could be shown to us. The learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the email dated 23 -01 -2013 sent by the complainant Mr. Ran Vijay Singh to Mr. Gaurav Mehra of Investors Clinic, whereby he (the complainant) has given preference for three separate units, all situated in Tower -A4 one on Floor 10, the second on Floor 9 and the third on Floor 11. But, there is no email or any other document, accepting the preference indicated by the complainant. It is stated in the email dated 23 -01 -2013 that during discussion with Mr. Martin Rui (General Manager, Sales and Marketing), the complainant was asked to give his preference of tower selection through the concerned dealer. Assuming that Mr. Martin Rui of Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. had asked the complainant to give his preference for the tower selected by him, that by itself does not result in a contractual obligation for allotment of a flat in the tower chosen by the complainant, unless such a preference is accepted by the builder. There is no evidence of the builder -Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. having accepted the preference indicated by the complainant for allotment in Tower -A4 of the Emerald Bay project. In fact, vide email dated 01 -04 -2013, Puri Constructions clearly stated that they had not launched the project in December 2012 and had not accepted any booking in that month. It was further stated in the aforesaid email that they had not authorised any channel partner to accept any booking in December 2012, leave aside offering any apartment in Tower -A4. It was also stated in the email that bookings were formally opened in Tower -A3 only in January 2013 and accordingly the booking of the complainant for a three BHK apartment was subsequently confirmed in Tower A3. A specific stand was taken in the email that Tower -A4 was not available for anyone at the inaugural rate and no allotment could be made in the said tower. More importantly, the builder allotted unit No.A3 -1503, in Tower -A3 to the complainant vide letter dated 11 -02 -2013. A perusal of the aforesaid document would show that the complainant was required to accept the terms of allotment as stated in the letter, after fully understanding the impact and effect thereof. The learned counsel for the complainant fairly admits that the aforesaid letter dated 11 -02 -2013 was signed by the complainant and sent to the builder accepting the terms of the allotment as stated in the letter. His contention is that though the allotment letter was accepted, mails were sent to the builder asking for allotment in Tower -A4 instead of Tower -A3. In our view, having accepted the allotment made in the Tower -A3, it was not open to the complainant to insist upon allotment of a flat in Tower -A4 as a matter of right. In fact, according to the builder -Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd, the company was yet to release towers Nos.A4 and A5 on 16 -03 -2013 when an email to this effect was sent by Mr. Martin Rui of Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant. The said email is available on page 48 of the paper book.

IT is also an admitted position that despite having been allotted a unit in Tower -A3, and the builder having not allotted a unit to him in Tower -A4, the complainant kept on making payments to the builder from time to time. Thus, not only did the complainant specifically accept the allotment made in Tower -A3, he also made several payments thereafter thereby clearly indicating that the allotment made in Tower -A3 was acceptable to him. If the complainant was not interested in obtaining allotment of a unit in Tower -A3, he, instead of making further payments, should have refused the allotment in Tower -A3 and should have asked the builder to refund the money which he had already paid, along with appropriate interest on that amount. That however, was not done and the complainant kept on making several payments, after accepting the allotment of unit No.A3 -1503 which admittedly was a part of Tower -A3 and not of Tower -A4.

IN these circumstances when (1) there is no document evidencing any commitment of the builder to allot a unit in Tower -A4, (2) the complainant accepted the allotment made in Tower -A3 by signing the provisional allotment letter dated 11 -02 -2013 and (3) the complainant kept on making payment, pursuant to the allotment made to him in Tower -A3 instead of seeking refund of the money which he had paid before receiving the allotment letter, we cannot accept the contention that the complainant was entitled to allotment of a unit in Tower -A4 in the project Emerald Bay situated in Sector -104 of Gurgaon. As a result, the prayer made in the complaint cannot be granted. We find no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.