Bhiwani District Commission Holds Mahira Group Developers Liable For Failure To Refund Amount After Missing Complainant's Name From List Of Allottees

Brief Facts:

Smt. Chanda Gupta (“Complainant”) booked a flat in sector 63A, Gurugram, and paid a booking amount of Rs. 1,05,000 to Mahira Group (“Builder”). The draw of the flats, originally scheduled for September 2020, took place in March 2021. However, the Complainant's name was conspicuously absent from the list of allottees. Consequently, the Complainant demanded an immediate refund through an email to the Builder and attached all necessary documents to the email. The Builder assured a refund within 30 days. However, despite the assurance, the Builder failed to make the payment. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani, Haryana (“District Commission”).

In response, the Builder raised preliminary objections regarding the suppression of material facts and contended that the Complainant is not a consumer. On the merits, the builder admitted that the Complainant deposited Rs. 1,05,000/- as a booking amount, and the draw date was 10.03.2021, as fixed by the Senior Town Planner. The Builder claimed to have informed the Complainant and other applicants of the draw results by email on 05.03.2021. Acknowledging that the Complainant was unsuccessful in the draw, the Builder stated that it communicated to the Complainant about the refund process, offering 50 appointments per day for the refund process to take place. The Complainant was informed of her appointment but before this, she sent a legal notice regarding the consumer complaint. The Builder argued that it faced disruptions in its operations due to the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March, April, May, and June 2021, therefore, it wasn't able to complete the refund. It asserted that the operations resumed on 01.06.2021, and despite providing an appointment, the Complainant did not provide her account details.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant made several efforts including sending legal notices and tried contacting through emails but the Builder didn't comply with the refund request. Further, it noted that there was a notable omission on the part of the Builder. It neither returned the deposited amount before the filing of the complaint nor during the proceedings of this case. This consistent failure suggested a clear intent on the part of the Builder not to refund the amount.

Consequently, the District Commission held the Builder liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices and ruled in favour of the Complainant. It directed the Builder to refund Rs. 1,05,000/- to the Complainant along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount till its actual realization. Additionally, it was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for harassment and Rs. 5,500/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.

Case Title: Chanda Gupta vs Mahira Group

Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 148 of 2021

Advocate for the Complainant: Sheela Tanwar

Advocate for the Respondent: Bidit Kumar Deka

Click Here To Read/Download The Order