Arbitrary Cancellation Of Allotment: NCDRC Directs E-Homes Infrastructure To Return The Amount Deposited
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya as the Presiding Member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh as a member directed the E- Homes Infrastructure to pay entire amount deposited by the complainants including Rs. 4,10,000/- incurred for purchasing stamp papers and the amount advanced by ICICI Bank along with an interest of 9% p.a. from the...
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya as the Presiding Member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh as a member directed the E- Homes Infrastructure to pay entire amount deposited by the complainants including Rs. 4,10,000/- incurred for purchasing stamp papers and the amount advanced by ICICI Bank along with an interest of 9% p.a. from the date of the deposit till the date of the payment. The commission was hearing a complaint filed for directing the opposite party to refund the balance principal amount along with an interest of 18% p.a. and other such reliefs.
The complainants heard about the housing project called “The Jewel Of Noida” undertaken as a group housing project and was launched by the opposite party. The complainants booked a flat in the project for their own-use and deposited a booking amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. They were allotted a flat for the total consideration of Rs.8235000/-. The complainant paid the amount of instalments as per the payment plans. Further, a loan was taken from the ICICI Bank which was directly paid to the opposite party.
The total amount paid by the complainant was Rs.9198984/- and then a final demand letter was sent to them by the opposite party. However, when the complainants demanded An occupation certificate, the opposite party got annoyed and cancelled their allotment. The refunds were accordingly made to the ICICI Bank but a deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- belonging to the complainants was forfeited and no interest was paid towards this amount. From the date of taking loan till the closure of the loan account, the complainants paid Rs.1018012/- towards EMI. The complainants purchased stamp of Rs.411000/- for sub-lease deed.
The opposite party raised their objections on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the national commission. Further, they stated that offer of possession cum demand has been issued to the complainants, but instead of making payment the complainants indulged in anti-social activities against the builder which created a serious problem before the opposite party. Complainant no.1 was found indulging in criminal activities including extortion and endangering the property of the opposite party and other allottees of the complex. Therefore, their allotment was cancelled and loan amount was returned to the ICICI Bank Ltd. according its statement of account. The opposite party was entitled to forfeit 10% of the total consideration on cancellation of the allotment as such remaining amount was forfeited.
The national commission observed that the allotment of the complainant was cancelled on the grounds that they indulged in criminal activities. However, there is no proof of such facts. The commission also noted that the opposite party has not filed the copy of FIR against the complainant no.1. It was observed that the cancellation letter was not based on any valid reason and is arbitrary. The bench noted that the complainants do not seek relief of the possession as the flat, which has been already sold by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainants are entitled for money deposited by them along with interest.
In the light of the discussion above, the bench directed the Opposite Party to pay entire amount deposited by the complainants including Rs.410000/- incurred for purchasing stamp papers and the amount advanced by ICICI Bank Ltd. along with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit, till the date of payment, adjusting the amount already paid to ICICI Bank Ltd., within a period of two months from the date of judgement.
Case: SUMIT MANSINGKA & ANR. V. E-HOMES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD
CONSUMER CASE NO. 780 OF 2018
Counsel for the Complainant: Mr. Saurabh Jain, Mr. Shajhan Kumar, Advocates
Counsel for the Respondents: No appearnce