New Delhi: A consumer forum has held a DLF group firm guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice for taking money from a cancer patient for a flat in an unapproved residential project and has asked them to pay him Rs 7.12 lakh.
Indicting DLF Home Developers Ltd for taking money from the buyer without entering into a formal agreement, the New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ordered the company to refund him Rs 6.12 lakh, which the firm was yet to return.
The forum also awarded Rs one lakh as compensation to complainant Satish Sharma for harassment.
"We are of the view that opposite party (DLF Home Developers) indulged in unfair trade practice of collecting money without approval of plans and without formal execution of the agreement.
"We direct opposite party to refund the balance amount of Rs 6,12,542 (to Sharma)...We award (the complainant) Rs one lakh for harassment damages including litigation cost," the bench presided by C K Chaturvedi said.
Sharma had said that on August 27, 2008, he had deposited the booking amount with DLF Home Developers for a flat in its 'The Express Greens' project in Gurgaon. He added he had met all subsequent demands of the firm even though there was no formal agreement and he had paid a total of Rs 14.37 lakh till January 16, 2009.
Later he came to know through newspaper reports that the project had been abandoned by the company due to financial reasons, he had said.
He added that as he was a cancer patient and the project had been abandoned, he had decided not to buy the flat and had requested that his booking be cancelled and sought refund of the amount paid by him.
The company had only refunded Rs 8,24,954 of the total Rs 14.37 lakh paid by Sharma on the ground that it was entitled to forfeit the earnest money and other non-refundable amount, as per the term and conditions agreed upon at the time of booking for provisional allotment.
It had contended in its reply before the forum that as per the terms and conditions agreed upon between them at the time of booking, Sharma was in default and forfeiture could be made as part of the contract.
The bench, however, rejected the contention saying "in this case, we find that complainant (Sharma) did not commit any default per-se, but requested cancellation, alleging inter alia no progress in project" and added that no formal agreement had been executed.