State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Renu Sinha vs Allwin Infrastructure Ltd. on 21 August, 2024
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022
Date of Institution : 14.03.2022
Reserved on : 30.07.2024
Date of Decision : 21.08.2024
Mrs. Renu Sinha, W/o Sanjay Kumar Sinha, R/o Flat No.195 Tower
E Bollywood Heights-2, Peer Muchhalla, Zirakpur, District S.A.S.
Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
....Complainant
Versus
Allwin Infrastructure Limited, having its registered office at Plot 361,
Phase-2, Industrial Area, Panchkula, Haryana.
Email: [email protected]
.....Opposite Party
Complaint U/s 47 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019.
Quorum:-
Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the complainant : Ms. Chhavi Bhudiraja, Advocate For opposite party : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER:-
The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, "the Act") for issuance of following directions to the Opposite party:-
i) to revoke & withdraw the letter of cancellation of the allotted apartment;
ii) to accept the payment of Rs.33,45,227/- as mentioned in the demand notice dated 01.12.2021;
iii) to not to levy any further interest or penalty on the due amounts after 31.12.2021, since the deponent had remitted the full amount of Rs.33,45,227/- on Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 2 31.12.2021, which was returned by the respondent arbitrarily;
iv) to issue copies of all the required approvals, NOC, documents required for sanction/disbursal of Housing loan to the complainant by his Bank, besides granting 'Permission to Mortgage' the allotted Flat &/or to execute 'Tripartite Agreement', as per the requirements of the Bank for Sanction/Disbursal of the Housing Loan to the deponent;
v) to award compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- to the deponent, since the unethical, illegal, unprofessional & unfair acts on the part of Respondent has caused harassment, great mental pain & agony, besides affecting academic career of the son of the deponent;
vi) to award Rs.1,10,000/- as litigation expenses in the interest of justice and equity, since the deponent has been forced by the acts of Respondent, to resort to the process of law to seek redressal of his grievances.
vii) Any other relief which may deem fit.
2. Brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the OP announced a residential project "El Espazia" bearing RERA Registration No.PBRERA-SAS79- PR0526, situated at Airport Road Zirakpur, District Mohali. The complainant evinced interest in the said residential project for their own residential requirement and paid the initial booking amount in four installments. The complainant paid total sum of Rs.41,28,310/- as initial booking amount from 14.04.2019 to 02.02.2021. Thereafter, allotment letter dated 20.02.2021 was issued by the OP to the complainant for Apartment No.D-1003, Block-A, Tower D, 10th Floor having carpet area of 2267.38 sq. ft.(approx). On 20.02.2021, an agreement to sell was also executed between the parties, wherein numerous terms and conditions regarding the payment of the rest of amount along with the possession and maintenance etc. were mentioned. The complainant opted for the Construction Linked payment plan as per Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 3 Schedule B. The total sale consideration of the apartment was fixed as Rs.1,60,53,100/- plus GST and the complainant has already paid Rs.57,74,564/- to the OP and never defaulted in making the payments. The complainant further stated that she suffered some personal problems due to which she had to divert her funds in family exigency and now for making payment to the OP, she has to avail bank loan to fulfill her commitment towards the OP qua the agreement to sell between them. The complainant requested the OP several times to provide some documents required by the bank, however due to non supplying of required documents like NOC, Project Approvals, Permission to Mortgage, Execution of Tripartite Agreement with Bank, RERA certificate etc, the sanction of the bank loan got delayed. Due to the biased & unprofessional conduct of the OP as well as for reasons beyond control of the complainant, she could not pay the amount as per the demand notice issued on 04.10.2021 for an amount of Rs.16,49,876/-. The second demand notice was also raised by the OP on 01.12.2021 for Rs.33,45,227/- including overdue amount of Rs.16,49,876/- plus interest for the delayed period. However, the complainant arranged for the funds and on 22.12.2021 a cheque of Rs.33.45.227/- was issued by the complainant in favour of the OP and same was deposited by her in the office of the OP, but the same was returned by the OP after few days. The complainant made frantic efforts to persuade the promoters and made various humble requests through personal visits so as to reconcile & settle the issue amicable, but all in vain. Hence, on 31.12.2021 the complainant, left with no other option, Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 4 finally paid the total sum of Rs.33,45,227/- through RTGS from his bank account into the bank account of the OP and communication of the same was sent by the complainant to the OP by email dated 31.12.2021. However, on 09.12.2021, the complainant received a letter, wherein it was mentioned "Intimation for cancellation of allotment letter against the apartment in question. The said letter/email was issued in contravention to the terms of the agreement to sell as well as in contravention to its own second illegal demand notice, which was issued on 01.12.2021, wherein interest upto 31.12.2021 was charged by the OP. As per clause 9.3(i) of the agreement for sale dated 20.02.2021, the OP was legally required to issue 3 demand notices to the allottee/complainant, as per payment plan, before cancelling the allotted unit. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint and sought relief as prayed for.
3. The OP appeared through counsel and filed written reply, wherein it raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the OP; has concealed material facts from this Commission; has filed a false and frivolous complaint to extract money from the OP; is not a Consumer as per section 2(7) of the Act and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The OP further stated that the complainant herself approached the OP for purchase of residential apartment being developed by the OP in the project in question. The complainant submitted expression of interest on 14.04.2019 along with Rs.2 lacs and thereafter submitted more Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 5 amount, i.e. a total amount of Rs.57,74,564/- was paid by her till 02.09.2021. The OP on 20.02.2021 issued allotment letter to the complainant and an agreement to sell was also executed between the parties. The complainant was a chronic defaulter and after making the payment of Rs.57,74,564/- by her, the OP issued various notices for making further payments but despite the same, the complainant did not make the payment. The OP was left with no option but to cancel the allotment and thereafter it duly refunded an amount of Rs.37,00,696/- to the complainant on 12.03.2022 duly credited in her bank account on 14.03.2022. The OP further stated that as per Clause 9 of the agreement for sale dated 20.02.2021, under the heading 'Events of default and consequences' it has been clearly mentioned under sub clause 9.3(i) that in case the allottee fails to pay three consecutive demands made by the promoters as per the payment plan, the allottee shall be liable to pay interest to the promoter on the unpaid amount as the rates specified in the rules. It has been further mentioned under sub clause 9.3(ii) that in case of default for a period of 2 consecutive months after notice from the promoter, the promoter shall cancel the allotment of the unit and refund the amount paid by the allottee after deducting 10% of the total consideration amount and interest liabilities and the agreement shall stand terminated. The complainant, remitted a sum of Rs.33,45,227/- on 31.12.2021, after the cancellation letter duly issued to her on 17.12.2021, however the OP immediately remitted back the said amount in the account of the complainant. Accordingly, the OP has rightly cancelled the allotment of the unit and refunded Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 6 the amount to the complainant, as such, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant annexed with the complaint her affidavit along with copies of documents i.e. Allotment letter dated 20.02.2021 Ex. C-1, agreement to sell dated 20.02.2021 Ex. C-2, demand notice dated 04.10.2021 Ex. C-3, cheque dated 22.12.2021 Ex.C-4, payment through RTGS dated 31.12.2021 Ex. C-5, second demand notice dated 01.12.2021 Ex. C-6, sanctioned of loan by bank Ex.C-7, email dated 31.12.2021 Ex. C-8, Pamphlet containing Revised & enhanced rates Ex.C-9 and legal notice Ex.C-10.
5. On the other hand, OP has filed affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar Garg, Director, along with copies of documents i.e. application form submitted by the complainant along with cheques amounting to Rs.57,74,564/- Ex. R-1 to R-5, allotment letter Ex.R-6, agreement for sale Ex.R-7, bank receipt dated 14.03.2022 regarding refund of Rs.37,00,696/- Ex. R-8, approval of construction from Municipal Council, Zirakpur dated 30.07.2019 Ex. R-9, acceptance of application for registration by the RERA dated 01.10.2019 Ex.R-10, statement of account Ex.R-10A, demand notice dated 02.08.2021 Ex.R-11, Email communications Ex. R-12 & R-13, demand notice dated 20.08.2021 Ex.R-14, demand notice dated 04.10.2021 Ex.R-15, reminder dated 21.10.2021 Ex.R-16, track consignment report Ex.R-17, email Ex.R-18, demand cum second reminder Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 7 through email Ex.R-19, demand letter dated 01.11.2021 along with postal receipt Ex. R-20 & R-21, Demand cum final reminder sent through email Ex.R-22, demand cum final reminder sent through registered post Ex.R-23 & R-24, letter dated 01.12.2021 sent to complainant and track consignment report Ex.R-25 & R-26, letter dated 09.12.2021 along with postal receipt Ex.R-27 & R-28, email dated 09.12.2021 Ex.R-29, letter dated 17.12.2021 Ex.R-30, track consignment report Ex.R-31, transaction detail dated 31.12.2021 regarding remitting back the amount of Rs.33,45,227/- to complainant Ex.R-32, email and letter dated 31.12.2021 Ex.R-33 & R-34, email dated 02.01.2022 sent by complainant Ex.R-35, reply dated 05.01.2022 to the said email Ex.R-36, Email dated 12.03.2022 send to complainant regarding refund of Rs.37,00,696/- through NEFT Ex.R-37, CLU dated 27.06.2018 Ex.R-38, license to develop colony vide letter dated 26.09.2019 issued by Local Government Ex.R-39 and certificate of registration dated 18.09.2019 Ex.R-40.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant had purchased the apartment in question of total sale consideration of Rs.1,60,53,100/- plus GST, out of which she had already paid a sum of Rs.57,74,564/- to the OP. The complainant wanted to avail bank loan to fulfill her commitment towards the OP qua the agreement to sell between the parties. However, numerous requests were made to the OP to provide necessary documents such as NOC, Project Approvals, Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 8 Permission to Mortgage, Executed of Tripartite Agreement with Bank, RERA Certificate etc. for sanctioning the bank loan, but the same were delayed by the OP, which resulted in delayed approval of the Bank Loan. The learned counsel further argued that a demand letter dated 04.10.2021 was received by the complainant, wherein a demand for Rs.16,49,876/- was raised by the OP. The complainant had communicated her inability to pay the installment at that moment as the bank loan was not yet sanctioned and the delay was also due to the unreasonable delay by the OP in providing the required documents. Thereafter, the complainant had again received a demand letter dated 01.12.2021 for Rs.33,45,227. As per clause 9.3(i) of the agreement for sale dated 20.02.2021, the OP was legally required to issue 3 demand notices to the allottee/complainant, as per payment plan, before cancelling the allotted unit. Even as per clause 9.2 (ii), cancellation can only be done after a period of two consecutive months after the notice issued by the promoter. In the present case, the last letter received by the complainant was dated 01.12.2021 and the payment along with delayed interest was made on 22.12.2021 to the OP, which was well within the period of two months. The OP has itself failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell and has arbitrarily cancelled the allotment of the apartment in question. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint and prayed for acceptance of the present complaint.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant was a chronic defaulter and after Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 9 making the payment of Rs.57,74,564/- by her, the OP issued various notices for making further payments but despite the same, the complainant did not make the payment. The OP left with no option but to cancel the allotment and thereafter it duly refunded an amount of Rs.37,00,696/- to the complainant on 12.03.2022, which got credited in her bank account on 14.03.2022. The learned counsel further argued that as per Clause 9 of the agreement for sale dated 20.02.2021, under the heading 'Events of default and consequences' it has been clearly mentioned under sub clause 9.3 that in case the allottee fails to pay three consecutive demands made by the promoters as per the payment plan, the allottee shall be liable to pay interest to the promoter on the unpaid amount as the rates specified in the rules. It has been further mentioned under sub clause 9.3(ii) that in case of default for a period of 2 consecutive months after notice from the promoter, the promoter shall cancel the allotment of the unit and refund the amount paid by the allottee after deducting 10% of the total consideration amount and interest liabilities and the agreement shall stand terminated. No payment had been paid by the complainant after receiving consecutive 06 demand notices from the OP for making the payment of the balance due against the apartment. Accordingly, the OP has rightly cancelled the allotment of the unit and refunded the amount to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the written reply and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 10
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. First of all, we would like to dispose of the objection of the OP that the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer', on the grounds that she purchased the unit only for commercial activity. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that there is no evidence from the side of the OP to prove that the complainant is indulging in sale/purchase of property for commercial purpose and simple assertion in this regard in its reply is not sufficient to prove this fact. Hon'ble National Commission in M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016, while relying upon its earlier decision in KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, held the complainants as consumers, observing that the appellant failed to show any cogent evidence, which may indicate that the respondents/complainants or any of them has been indulging in sale/purchase of the properties or that the complainants or any one of them had booked the subject plots in the development project undertaken by the appellant with the intention to sell the same on subsequent date for earning profit. In the instant case also, as already said above, there is no evidence led by the OP to prove that the complainant indulged in sale/purchase of properties or that she purchased the unit, in question, for further sale or for earning profits by doing commercial activities. Thus, in view of the ratio of the above Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 11 cited authorities, the above said plea/objection of the OP is rejected and the complainant is held to be 'Consumer', under the Act.
11. Another objection is raised by the learned counsel for OP that since the OP had already refunded an amount of Rs.37,00,696/- as on 12.03.2022 after cancellation of the allotted unit in question, the present complaint is not maintainable. In this regard, we are of the opinion that since the complainant has challenged the cancellation of the allotted unit by the OP, by way of filing the present complaint which is still under consideration and this Commission has yet to decide that the cancellation is valid or not, the complaint filed by the complainant is duly maintainable. Accordingly, this objection raised by the OP is not tenable and the same is hereby rejected.
12. Now, we proceed to decide the complaint on merits. The factual matrix of the complaint is that the complainant booked an apartment in the residential project in question developed by the OP and paid a total sum of Rs.57,74,564/- against the total sale consideration of Rs.1,62,36,780/- plus GST. The detail of payment is as under:-
Sr. No. Date Amount Mode of payment
1 14.04.2019 Rs.2,00,000/- Cheque
2 23.05.2019 Rs.13,72,310/- Cheque
3 29.12.2020 Rs.17,30,000/- Cheque
4 02.02.2021 Rs.8,26,000/- Cheque
5 02.09.2021 Rs.16,46,254/- RTGS
Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 12
On 20.02.2021, an allotment letter (Ex.C-1) qua apartment No.D-1003, Block-A, Tower D, 10th Floor having carpet area of 2267.38 Sq.ft.(approx.) was issued to the complainant by the OP. On 20.02.2021 itself, an agreement for sale (Ex.C-2) was executed between the parties and elaborated terms and conditions with regard to the remaining payment as well as possession, maintenance etc. were mentioned. The complainant had opted for construction linked payment plan and (Schedule-B) is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-
SCHEDULE 'B'-PAYMENT PLAN OPTED BY THE ALLOTTEE Construction Linked Payment Plan (CLP Sr. Installment schedule of Booked Floor Payment Percentage(%) No. 1 On booking 10% of BSP +GST 2 On Start of Construction 15% of BSP +GST 3 On casting of 1st floor 10% of BSP +GST 4 On casting of 3rd floor 10% of BSP +GST 5 On casting of 5th floor 10% of BSP +GST 6 On casting of 7th floor 8% of BSP +GST 7 On casting of 9th floor 8% of BSP +GST 8 On Start of Brick Work 8% of BSP +GST 9 On start of Internal Plaster 8% of BSP +GST 10 On start of Flooring & External Plaster 8% of BSP +GST 11 On offer of possession 5% of BSP + (PLC if applicable) + Applicable Taxes/other charges The case of the complainant is that she paid a total sum of Rs.41,28,310/- as initial booking amount from 14.04.2019 to 02.02.2021. After the issuance of the allotment letter, she has paid a total sum of Rs.57,74,564/- as per the payment plan to the OP, but due to some personal and financial exigency, she wanted to avail bank loan to fulfill her further commitment towards the OPs qua the agreement to sell executed between the parties. She has Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 13 approached the OP several times to provide certain documents required by the Bank for clearance of the loan, however, due to non supplying of required documents like NOC, project approvals, permission to mortgage, execution of Tripartite Agreement with Bank, RERA Certificate etc. by the OP, there was a delay in sanction of the bank loan, for which OP is responsible. It has been alleged that due to this unprofessional and biased conduct of the OP as well as for reasons beyond control of complainant, she could not pay as per the demand notice issued on 04.10.2021 for an amount of Rs.16,49,876/- (Ex.C-3). Thereafter, another demand notice was raised by the OP on 01.12.2021 for Rs.33,45,227/- including overdue amount of Rs.16,49,876/- of notice dated 04.10.2021, plus interest for the delayed period from 04.10.2021 to 30.12.2021. The complainant, in response to said notice, had arranged the funds and a cheque dated 22.12.2021 amounting to Rs.33,45,227/- in favour of the OP (Ex.C-4), was deposited with it but the OP returned the same after few days for the reasons best known to it. Left with no option, the complainant paid the said amount through RTGS on 31.12.2021(Ex.C-5) in the bank account of the OP, which was returned by the OP in a malafide manner. The grievance of the complainant is that the OP has acted illegally, maliciously and arbitrarily by cancelling the allotment of her allotted apartment and OP has itself failed to abide by the terms and condition of the agreement to sell, Ex.C-2. On the other hand, the case of the OP is that complainant was a chronic defaulter and after making the payment of Rs.57,74,564/-, no further payment had been paid by her Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 14 even after receiving consecutive 06 demand notices sent by the OP for making the payment of the balance due against the apartment.
The OP was left with no option but to cancel the allotment, vide letter dated 17.12.2021 (Ex.R-30) as per the clause 9 of the agreement to sell and thereafter, it duly refunded an amount of Rs.37,00,696/- to the complainant on 12.03.2022, which got credited in her bank account on 14.03.2022.
13. The moot question to be decided in the present case is whether the cancellation of the allotted unit by the OP is justifiable or not? To iron out the said controversy, we have perused the evidence placed on record as well as pleadings of the parties. Clause 9(3) of the agreement to sell dated 20.02.2021, Ex.C-2, is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-
"9. Events of Defaults and Consequences:
.................................................... 9.3 The Allottee shall be considered under a condition of default, on the occurrence of the following events:
i) in case the Allottee fails to make payment for 03 consecutive demands made by the Promoter as per the Payment Plan annexed hereto, despite having been issued notice in that regard, the allottee shall be liable to pay interest to the promoter on the unpaid amount at the rate specified in the Rules;
ii) in case of Default by Allottee under the condition listed above continues for a period beyond 02 consecutive months after notice from the Promoter in this regard, the Promoter shall cancel the allotment of the Unit in favour of the Allottee and refund the amount money paid to him by the allottee by deducting 10% of the total consideration amount and the interest liabilities and this Agreement shall thereupon stand terminated."
According to the provisions of clause 9.3 (i) of the agreement to sell dated 20.02.2021, in case the allottee fails to make payment for Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 15 three consecutive demands made by the promoters, as per the payment plan, the allottee shall be liable to pay interest to the promoter on the unpaid amount as per rates specified in the rules and as per clause 9.3(ii), in case of default for a period of 2 consecutive months after notice as per clause 9.3(i), the promoter shall cancel the allotment of the unit and refund the amount paid by the allottee after deducting 10% of the total consideration amount. In the present case, it is pertinent to mention here the OP on casting of 1st floor, issued demand notice dated 02.08.2021 (Ex.R-11) to the complainant, as per schedule B(payment plan) and raised a demand of Rs.16,46,254/-, which was duly paid by the complainant on 02.09.2021 through RTGS. Thereafter, the OP on casing of 3rd floor, again issued demand notice dated 04.10.2021 (R-15) to the complainant and raised a demand of Rs.16,49,876/-, which was not paid by the complainant despite reminder letters Ex.R-16, R-20 & R-23. Thereafter, the OP on casting of 5th floor, again issued demand notice dated 01.12.2021(Ex.R-25) and raised a demand of Rs.33,45,227/-, which included the amount of previous demand notice dated 04.10.2021 (R-15) along with interest on delayed payment w.e.f. 04.10.2021 to 30.12.2021. As per said demand notice dated 01.12.2021, the complainant was requested to pay the amount of Rs. 33,45,227/- within a period of 10 days from the date of this letter i.e. till 11.12.2021 (the said letter was dispatched to the complainant on 02.12.202, Ex.R-26). However, the OP vide cancellation letter dated 09.12.2021 (Ex.R-27), i.e. prior to the expiry of stipulated period for depositing the demanded amount, informed Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 16 the complainant for cancellation of allotment against the apartment in question, in case she failed to pay the amount within 7 days. Thereafter, vide letter dated 17.12.2021 (Ex.R-30) the OP cancelled the allotment-Agreement of Apartment in question on the ground that despite several reminders, the complainant failed to pay the amount as per payment schedule and has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell.
14. It also would be relevant to mention here that in the present case Clause 9.3(i) (Supra) is applicable only in case the complainant fails to make the payment for 3 consecutive demands made by the OP as per the payment plan, but the OP has made only 2 consecutive demands as per payment plan, which were not complied with by the complainant within the stipulated time period, i.e. demand notice dated 04.10.2021 (Ex.R-15) on casing of 3rd floor, and demand notice dated 01.12.2021(Ex.R-25) on casting of 5th floor. However, qua the demand notice dated 01.12.2021(R-25) the complainant firstly handed over a cheque dated 22.12.2021 for an amount of Rs.33,45,227/- (Ex.C-4) to the OP, which was returned by it and subsequently on 31.12.2021, she deposited the said amount through RTGS (Ex.C-5) in the account of the OP, which was again refunded to the complainant by the OP. The demands raised by the OP on 21.10.2021 (Ex.R-16), on 01.11.2021 (Ex.R-20) and on 27.11.2021 (Ex.R-23) are reminder letters only and cannot be treated as demand notices as per payment schedule. Moreover, the clause 9.3(ii)(Supra), relied upon by the OP, comes into operation only when the complainant fails to make the payment as per clause Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 17 9.3(i) of the agreement to sell. Since the complainant has not violated the terms and conditions mentioned in the clause 9.3(i), the cancellation of the allotment and refund of the amount to the complainant as per clause 9.3(ii) by the OP is not justified. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that due to increase in the price of the property, the OP wanted to sell the apartment in question to another party at higher rates due to which it was in a hurry to cancel the allotted unit. We find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant and an adverse inference is to be drawn against the OP. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the OP has illegally cancelled the allotment of the apartment in question and thereafter refunded the amount of Rs.37,00,696/- to the complainant in an arbitrary manner. The said cancellation of the allotted apartment by the OP is liable to be revoked. The OP is to accept the payment of Rs.33,45,227/- as mentioned in the demand notice dated 01.12.2021 without any further interest or penalty and also to supply all the documents required for obtaining the housing loan by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for composite amount of compensation on account of harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses.
15. In view of above, the complaint is partly allowed against the OP and the following directions are issued to it.
i) to revoke/withdraw the letter dated 17.12.2021 (Ex. R-30) for cancellation of allotted apartment;
ii) to accept the payment of Rs.33,45,227/- as mentioned in the demand notice dated 01.12.2021 from the complainant without any further interest or penalty;
Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2022 18
iii) to supply all the documents required for obtaining the housing loan by the complainant;
iv) to pay a composite amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.60,000/-.
16. The complainant is also directed to pay back the amount refunded by the OP to the tune of Rs.37,00,696/- after cancellation of the allotment.
17. Parties are directed to comply with the order within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(H.P.S.MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER August 21, 2024 dv