NCDRC Holds BPTP Builders Liable For Cancellation Of The Allotment Of The Flat

Contentions of the Complainant

The complainant entered into an agreement with BPTP Builders (opposite party) to purchase a flat, making an initial payment of Rs. 5,50,000. Although a provisional receipt was issued, repeated requests for a proper receipt went unanswered. Despite making this payment, the complainant did not receive a receipt, allotment letter, or agreement for the transaction. The builder eventually allotted a flat to the complainant, but she requested a change due to her husband's physical handicap. Despite sending notices, subsequent payments were not made by the complainant. The builder issued a final notice demanding Rs. 7,71,750 and eventually canceled the allotment, forfeiting the earnest money. The complainant approached the Haryana District Forum, which ruled in her favor, directing the payment of Rs. 8,50,000 with interest at 11% from the filing date, along with Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,500 as litigation costs. However, the State Commission of Haryana modified the order, entitling the petitioner only to refund the principal amount without interest. This revision petition challenges the State Commission's decision.

Observations by the Commission

The commission observed that, based on the evidence, it is evident that the builder failed to provide a properly executed Allotment Letter detailing the rights and obligations of both parties, and it also did not issue valid receipts for the payments received. Despite this, the builder insisted on forfeiting the earnest money due to non-payment of the demanded installments mentioned in the Allotment Letter. The commission observed that the builder accepted deposits without providing proper documentation, leading to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Although a default clause covered the petitioner's payment delays, the builder did not enforce it. The commission stressed that its review authority is limited to cases with a prima facie error, referencing precedents like Rubi(Chandra) Dutta, 2011, and Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. Additionally, revisional jurisdiction is applicable only in instances of jurisdictional errors or material irregularities resulting in a miscarriage of justice. In this case, the State Commission agrees with the District Forum's conclusion, but it finds the petitioner and the respondent at fault without providing any reasons. Due to the lack of explanation, the order by the state commission is considered liable for rejection.

The commission set aside the order by the state commission and directed the builder to repay the amount of Rs 8,50,000deposited by the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum from the dates of the respective deposit till realization within 8 weeks of this order along with litigation cost of Rs 10,000.