CONSUMER CASES ON REFUND

CASE NAME CITATION JUDGEMENT

2020 SCC OnLine These Consumer Complaints,
Deepak Agarwal and Another …
NCDRC 26 under Section 21 read with
Versus Section 12(1)(a) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and (for short “the Act”), have been
Another filed by the Complainants, the
allottees of Residential
Flats/Apartments in a project,
namely, “Greenopolis” (for short
“the Project”), to be developed
and constructed by the Opposite
Party at Sector 89, Gurgaon,
Haryana, seeking
possession of their respective
booked flats or refund of the
amount paid with interest and
compensation for the losses
suffered by them on
account of unfair and restrictive
trade practices adopted and the
deficient services rendered by
the Opposite Parties in not
handing over the
possession of the allotted
Flats/Apartments within the
stipulated time.
Further, the Opposite Parties had
never disclosed, in the Project
Layout Plan, Brochure or in the
Agreement, that there is a huge
sewage canal passing through
the middle of the Project which is
in close proximity to the tower in
which the Complainants have
been allotted their Apartment and
that a high tension electric wire
was also passing through the
Project. Both these factors
depreciate the value of the
property and also have serious
repercussions on the health.
Complainants averred that they
would have never opted for the
said Project if these facts were
known to them at the
time of booking.
the non-
disclosure of passage of sewage
drainage canal
and high tension electricity line
through the Project; as deficiency
in service/unfair trade practice on
the part of the Opposite Parties,
the Complainants have filed this
Complaint praying following
directions to the Opposite
Parties:

(i) to handover
possession of the
Apartment, in conformity
with the Buyer's
Agreement, complete in
all respects, with all
additional facilities and to
execute necessary and
required
documents of the said
Apartment in favour of the
Complainants within eight
months from the
date of filing of the
Complaint;

(ii) in the event, the prayer at

(i) is not allowable,
to refund the entire
amount of Rs.
90,53,310/- with penal
interest @18% p.a. from
the respective
dates of receipt of each
payment;

(iii) to pay interest @18% p.a.

on the amount deposited
from the promised
date of delivery of posses
sion till the date of actual
possession with all
 necessary documents
and common areas and
facilities as promised;

(iv) to pay Rs. 6,000/- per day

in case of failure to
provide possession within
the stipulated time as
directed by this
Commission;

(v) to make arrangements to

cover the sewage
drainage canal flowing
through the project and to
pay compensation
amounting to 20% of the
total
consideration for loss in
the value of the
Apartment due to
presence of the sewage
canal
and high tension wire;

(vi) to refund the wrongly

charged taxes like
Service Tax and other
charges like Preferential
Location Charges with
interest @12% p.a. from
the date of receipt of such
wrongful charges and
taxes;

 Chaiman Haryana State 015 SCC The short grievance of the

Agricultural Marketing OnLine NCDRC 358
Board v. Lt. Col. Balbir 5 Complainant, as pleaded in the
Singh Complaint, was that being the
successful bidder in public
auction of Plot no. 160 at Rs.
3.11 Lac, he had deposited a
 sum of Rs. 78, 000/-, being 25%
of the total bid amount, on
18.11.1990. However, on issue
of the allotment letter, dated
01.02.1991, to him, when he
visited the site, he discovered
that high tension wires were
passing over the plot, which
would endanger human lives
when upper storeys are
constructed, as had happened in
the case of the adjoining Plot no.
161. Apprehending serious
problems on that account, the
Complainant did not make any
further payment towards the bid
amount. Instead, he made some
representation to the Marketing
Board. The Marketing Board
accepted his representation and
directed him to pay only a sum of
Rs. 72, 000/-, being reduced
price of the Plot at Rs. 1.5 Lac.
The Complainant did not pay
even the said amount.
Levelling allegation against
the Marketing Board of duping an
ex-service man, sometime in the
year 1999, the Complainant filed
Complaint seeking direction to
the Marketing Board to refund
the amount of Rs. 78, 000/- paid
by him on 18.11.1990 along with
interest @ 18% p.a. from the
said date and a compensation of
Rs. 20,00,000/- for causing
mental, physical and financial
sufferings to him.

Huda v. Parveen Kumar 2017 SCC OnLine  The facts of the case are that
Jain NCDRC 672 the opposite party (OP) HUDA
allotted plot No. 25-SP in Sector
6, Hansi, Hisar, Haryana to the
 complainant/respondent vide
their memo No. 11981 dated
23.07.1992. The total cost of the
plot was stated to be Rs.
3,11,472/-. It is stated in the
consumer complaint that the
complainant had paid the entire
price of the plot in question.
However, the HUDA did not
complete the development works
in that sector within a reasonable
time and did not offer possession
of the plot in question till March
1996. The HUDA sent memo No.
3478 dated 7.03.96, offering the
possession of the plot to the
complainant, but the same was
withdrawn by them vide memo
No. 6109 dated 04.04.96 on the
ground that a high tension
electricity line was passing over
the plot in question. The HUDA
again offered the possession of
the plot in question vide their
Memo no. 1573 dated 10.11.98.
The complainant alleged that the
development works in the sector
were not complete even at that
time and the HUDA had offered
the possession in order to avoid
their liability of payment of
interest on the amount deposited
with them. The complainant also
stated that prior to the offer of
possession on 10.11.98, the
HUDA had issued another letter
dated 03.09.1998, asking for the
consent of the complainant for
allotment of plot No. 10/P or 24/P
by draw of lots. The complainant
filed the consumer complaint in
question, seeking interest @18%
p.a. on the amount deposited by
him with the OP HUDA from the
date of deposit till the date of
offer of possession of the plot in
question and also to pay a
compensation of Rs. 1 lakh on
account of mental harassment
etc. and another sum of Rs. 1
lakh as difference in cost of
construction material prevailing
in the years 1992 and 1999. It
was also stated in the consumer
complaint that if the HUDA was
 not in a position to offer
possession of plot No. 25SP due
to crossing of high-tension
electricity wires, they may offer
alternative plot 10P or 24P in the
same sector and refund the
excess amount of Rs. 51,912/- to
him.
2019 SCC OnLine
V vinamra Shyamji Sharma … In July 2017, it comes to the
NCDRC 1127
Versus knowledge of the complainant that
several facts were concealed and
Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and
not disclosed by the opposite
Another 
parties in the project layout plan,
brochure and the agreement, like
there is a huge sewage canal
passing through the middle of the
project and that the tower-8 in
which the complainant has been
allotted the apartment is adjacent
to this sewage canal and is in
close proximity. Also there is a
high tension electric wire passing
through the project. Hence, the
present consumer complainant
with following prayers:—

“(i) Direct the opposite party

(s), jointly or severally, to
handover
possession of the
apartment to the
complainant, complete in
all respects and in
conformity with the buyer's
agreement and for the
consideration mentioned
therein, with all additional
facilities and as per quality
standards promised and
execute all necessary and
required documents in
respect of the said
apartment in favour of the
complainant (s) within 8
months of this
 petition filed before this
Hon'ble Commission or as
this Hon'ble Commission
deems fit and appropriate;

(ii) Direct the opposite party

(s), jointly or severally, for
an immediate 100%
refund of the total
amount of Rs. 74,04,137/-
(Rupees Seventy Four
Lakhs Four Thousand One
Hundred Thirty Seven
only) paid by the
complainant (s) along with
a penal interest of 18%
per annum from the
date of receipt of each
payments made to the
opposite party(s);

(iii) Direct the opposite party

(s), jointly or severally, to
pay interest @ 12% per
annum on the amount
deposited by the
complainant (s) with the
opposite party (s), with
effect from the
date of delivery promised
in the agreement, till the
date of actual possession
as per clause (a) above is
handed over by the
opposite party (s) along
with all necessary
documents and common
areas and facilities as
promised during the initial
booking made by the
complainant (s);

(iv) Direct the opposite party

(s), jointly or severally, to
 pay Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees
Six thousand only) per day
to the complainant in
case of failure to provide
the possession within the
stipulated time as directed
by this Hon'ble
Commission;

(v) Direct the opposite

party(s), jointly or
severally, to make
adequate arrangements to
cover the sewage
drainage canal flowing
through the project and
pay compensation
amounting to 20% of the
total consideration of the
apartment for
loss of value of the
apartment due to the
presence of sewage
drainage canal and the
high tension wire;

(vi) Direct the opposite

party(s), jointly or
severally, to refund
wrongfully charged taxes,
which includes but not
limited to service tax,
along with the interest on
that amount at the
rate of 12% from the
date of receipt of such
wrongfully levied charges
and taxes;

(vii) Direct the opposite

party(s), jointly or
severally, to provide
adequate care parking
spaces in the project for
 the occupants and refund
the excess amount
collected and/or wrongly
collected charges from the
complainant(s), in the
project “Greenopolis”
towards car parking slots
with interest @ 12% p.a.

(viii) Direct the opposite

party(s), jointly or
severally, to pay
compensation of Rs.
5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs only) to the
complainant for mental
agony, harassment,
discomfort and undue
hardships caused to the
complainant as a
result of the above acts
and omissions on the
part of the opposite party
(s);

(ix) Direct the opposite

party(s), jointly or
severally, to pay a
sum of INR.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Only)
to the complainant as a
whole, towards litigation
costs;

(x) Pass any other order

and/or further relief in
favour of the
complainant(s) as the
Hon'ble Commission may
deem fit and proper in the
facts and
circumstances of the
case.”
Yudhvir Singh vs Ndpl State Consumer The complainant being
Disputes dissatisfied with order dated
Redressal 24.04.08 passed by district forum
Commission allowing the complaint in part, has
2 May, 2017 filed the instant appeal.
OP/Respondent was directed to
shift the high-tension wire
underground after appellant
deposits Rs.3,74,137/-required by
the respondent.  The respondent
was also directed to provide
domestic connection on
completion of commercial
formalities. 
In appeal the appellant had
pleaded that the cost of estimate
determined by erstwhile Delhi
Vidyut Board was Rs. 26,056.12. 
Respondent estimated the same at
Rs. 33,528/-. The appellant
deposited the same vide receipt
dated 14.07.03.  The respondent
again asked the appellant to
deposit Rs. 6,000/- further due to
increase in labour cost which was
also deposited by appellant.
Despite that the overhead line was
not shifted.  After considerable
time the appellant was told by the
officials of respondent that some
neighbour has obtained the stay
from Civil Court against shifting
of electricity line and so they could
not shift the overhead line. The
appellant came to know that
neighbour Shri Mint Ram
succeeded to obtain the stay order
with the help and connivance of
officials of respondent which is
clear from the fact that officials of
respondent gave undertaking in
court that it will not install or fix
electric pole in front of plot of said
Shri Mint Ram. The respondent
also undertook that no electric wire
shall be stretched above Plot No.3
of said Mint Ram.  Hence the
appellant has prayed for directing
respondent to shift overhead
electric line and in the event of not
doing so, respondent may be
directed to refund the amount
deposited by appellant.