AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sangwan Heights Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 27.08.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal no.1241/2018.
Brief facts of the case are that on 24.8.2009, respondents/complainants booked a flat in multi-storey residential project to be developed by opposite party. Complainants deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Till 22.9.2009, complainant deposited total amount of Rs.11,34,000/- to opposite party. Total cost of the allotted flat was fixed at Rs.14,40,000/-. On 15.6.2010, opposite party issued a notice to deposit the balance payment of Rs.2,73,780/-. Complainants made the adjustment of Rs.2,34,000/-. In total complainants deposited an amount of Rs.13,68,000/-. By notice, cost of the flat was increased to Rs.26,06,794/-. Complainants felt aggrieved from the additional demand of Rs.12,38,794/- due to the sudden escalation in the cost of the flat.
Accordingly, complainants filed a consumer complaint bearing No.176/2017 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad, (in short 'the District Forum') and the District Forum vide its order dated 19.08.2017 allowed the complaint as under:-
"The complaint of the complainants is accepted ex-parte. The opposite party is directed that it will pay the complainant's deposited amount of Rs.13,68,000/- along with 12% interest, within 60 days to complainants the calculation of the interest will be made from the date of deposit of amount, till the date of refund. Opposite party will also pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses within 60 days."
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties/petitioners herein preferred an appeal bearing No.1242 of 2018 before the State Commission and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2018 by the State Commission.
Hence the present revision petition.
Learned counsel stated that the petitioner was ex-parte before the District Forum as no notice was received by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was not able to put forward his defence before the District Forum. The fact is that the allotment in favour of the respondents was cancelled by the petitioner as the respondents became defaulters and did not pay the total amount as per the terms of the agreement. The petitioner is entitled to forfeit 10% of the total consideration if the allotment is cancelled due to non-payment of instalments. However, this fact was not brought before the District Forum and therefore, the District Forum has passed the order for refunding the total amount paid by the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. These issues were raised in the appeal before the State Commission, however, the State Commission did not address all the issues and dismissed the appeal. It was prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and orders of the fora below be set aside.
I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the material on record. It is seen that the original price of the flat was Rs.14,40,000/- whereas, the same was increased to Rs.26,06,794/-. Obviously, when the cost of flat is suddenly increased to double of its original price, a person is entitled to ask for the refund as everybody has limited capacity to pay according to his means.
The complainants had booked the flat keeping in view his capacity to pay Rs.14,40,000/- and if the price is suddenly increased to Rs.26,06,794/- , which was beyond his capacity to pay and therefore, he is entitled to get refund of full amount. I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 27.8.2017 passed by the State Commission in FA No.1241 of 2018 which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the Revision Petition No.2945 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage.