AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
The complainant / respondent booked a residential plot with the appellant in a project namely "TDI City", which the appellant was to develop in Mohali. Vide letter dated 19.9.2008, a plot bearing No. 199 and admeasuring 250 Sq. Yards in the above referred project was allotted to him at a price of Rs.22.00 lacs. The complainant made a payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- on different dates. This is also the case of the appellant that he could not make balance payment to the appellant since he was to obtain finance for payment of the balance sale consideration but the appellant did not issue the NOC, which was essentially required for disbursement of the loan, though, the said loan had been sanctioned by LIC Housing Finance Limited. The appellant cancelled the allotment vide its letter dated 02.12.2009 on account of the non-payment of the balance sale consideration. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint, seeking possession of the allotted plot or an alternative, refund from the appellant, along with compensation etc.
The complaint was resisted by the appellant primarily on the ground that the complainant had failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.12,01,250/-, despite the said amount having been demanded from him and therefore, the cancellation was justified.
The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the appellant as under:
"12. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed as under:
(i) to issue NOC to the complainant, to enable him to avail of home loan, for paying the remaining sale consideration of the plot, in question;
(ii) to hand over physical possession of (fully developed) plot No.199 measuring 250 sq. yards to the complainant, in Integrated Township called 'TDI City' at Mohali-Kharar Road, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, on receipt of the balance amount of sale consideration, as already agreed upon. However, the opposite party would be entitled to charge interest / penal interest, on the delayed payments, only from the date of issuance of the above N.O.C. from the complainant.
(iii) In the alternative, if for any reason, if the possession of the plot No.199, above, could not be given to the complainant, then to hand over possession of some other fully developed plot of similar size and same specifications in the same project, on payment of the remaining sale consideration and interest on the same terms as indicated in direction No.(ii).
(iv) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, to the complainant, towards mental agony and physical harassment.
(v) to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant, as cost of litigation.
The opposite party is directed to comply with the directions given in para 12(i), (iv) & (v), within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which it shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 24.5.2012, till actual payment, besides costs."
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant is before this Commission by way of this appeal.
The learned counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention to the final reminder dated 21.5.2009 issued by the appellant to the complainant more than six months before cancelling the allotment. The said reminder bears the following endorsement:
"Home Loan Case- NOC is awaited -No interest to be charged till NOC is given."
It would thus be seen that the appellant knew it very well that the balance sale consideration was to be paid by the complainant by taking a home loan and an NPC was required for availing the said home loan. It also shows that since the NOC had not been issued by the appellant, it had also agreed not to charge any interest from the complainant till NOC was given to him. It is an admitted position that the requisite NOC was not given to the complainant at any point of time. The complainant has placed on record a letter dated 20.10.2009 sent by him to the appellant, informing it that the loan for payment to the appellant had been sanctioned to him by LIC Housing Finance Limited and requesting the appellant to issue the requisite NOC, in order to enable him to avail the said loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited. He also stated in the aforesaid letter that the NOC had not been issued to him by the appellant, despite his previous request, but still he had got sanctioned a fresh loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited for which he required NOC in order to avail the sanctioned loan. A copy of the sanction letter issued by LIC Housing Finance Limited was also annexed to the said letter. The appellant has also placed on record the sanction issued to him by LIC Housing Finance Limited on 09.3.2009 approving the loan (in principle), subject ot his furnishing documents, including NOC.
It is therefore evident that though the requisite home loan had bene got sanctioned by the complainant, he could not avail the said loan only because of the failure of the appellant to issue the requisite NOC to him. Had the NOC been issued, the home loan sanctioned to the complainant would have been released by LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and would have been paid to the appellant. The appellant is squarely responsible for the balance payment not having been made to it despite the home loan to the complainant having been sanctioned. The appellant, in my opinion, could not have cancelled the allotment since the default in payment of the balance amount occurred solely on account of its own deficiency in its not having issued the requisite NOC to the complainant. Therefore, the direction Nos. (i) (ii) (iii) and (v) issued by the State Commission do not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the direction for payment of compensation to the complainant was not justified. The appellant is directed to comply with the directions (i) (ii) (iii) and (v) issued by the State Commission within 12 weeks from today.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.