Smt. Kamini Gupta & Ors.                     -- Petitioners 
                Vs.
M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.   -- Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B.Shah, President, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member.

B.K. Taimni, Member.

     Petitioner was the Complainant before the District Forum where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Respondent, M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.

     Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant in response to an advertisement made by the Respondent applied for allotment of six flats and deposited the initial amount in respect of each of the flat. In the draw of lots, the complainant was successful and was communicated of the same on 1.5.1992. By virtue of this allotment letter, the complainant was asked to deposit the allotment money. Instead of doing this, the complainant vide her letter dated 21.5.1992 she requested for cancellation of allotment and refund of the deposited amount. When on repeated requests this amount was not being refunded, Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum who after hearing the parties and perusal of evidence and other material on record, allowed the complaint. On an appeal being filed, the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Petitioner/Complainant has filed this Revision Petition before us.

     We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The only point of controversy relates to refund of the advance money amounting to Rs. 60,000/-. The case of the Petitioner is that there was no provision for forfeiting the deposited money in case of cancellation/recall of booking amount. For this she relied on the copy of the advertisement in the Newspaper which is on record. It is her case that the Brochure of the Scheme was never let known to the complainant. In fact this is a creation of the Respondent to frustrate the case of the Complainant. This has no value as it was not produced before the District Forum. It was also argued that the Scheme under which flats were to come up, was not an approved Scheme.

     The latter argument does not cut much ice with us as it is not on that ground that the complainant sought cancellation of flats. On this main contention, the State 

     Commission has delved at length. In our view it cannot be any one's case that the advertisement in the Newspaper forms the final terms. It is the Brochure which has to be basis forming terms of the agreement in the written version filed before the District Forum, this plea was taken by the Respondent. It is true that the Scheme was not produced before the District Forum but it was produced before the State Commission and is on record. In the advertisement, in our view key part is -

     "For details please contact - ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., 15, UGF, Indraprakash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi."

     What is given in the details is as follows:

- Registration amount will earn an interest @ 12% till the date of draw.

- No interest is payble on any amount after the date of draw of lots.

- In case the applicant wishes to withdraw his registration amount prior to the allotment he can do the same within 7 days of his application date with deduction of 10% of the amount deposited. Withdrawal would not be permitted after 7 days.

- Refund for NRI's will be made in Indian currency.

     Payment towards basis cost is to be made in the following manner:

1) Registration amount.

2) 10% on allotment

3) Balance is to be paid in 12 equal quarterly instalments from the date of draw.

     Admitted portion is that the Complainant did not ask for cancellation of registration within 7 days of the allotment. In our view it was for the Complainant to obtain the details as spelled out in the Advertisement. If she assumed that what appeared in the Newspaper was a self contained advertisement, she need to suffer for that. Besides this she appended her signatures to abide by the terms and conditions laid down by the Respondent. Complainant cannot now get out of it. 

     In our view, no legal or factual error or point of jurisdiction has been shown in the well reasoned order passed by the State Commission, calling for exercise of power conferred on us by virtue of Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This Petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.