Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1042/2013

SQN. LDR. K.L. MALIK & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIR FORCE NAVAL HOUSING BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision : 20.03.2015

First Appeal No.1042/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 22.08.2013 in Complaint Case No. 1323/2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Udyog Sadan C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi-110016)

1. Sqn. Ldr. K.L.Malik

S/o Late Sh. Diwa Ram Malik

R/o K-82, Sector-25 Noida

2. Sh. Sunil Malik

S/o Sqn. Ldr. K.L.Malik

R/o K-82, Sector-25

Noida                             …Appellants

                           

VERSUS

Air Force Naval Housing Board

Air Force Station

Race Course Road

New Delhi-110003    ......Respondent

 

CORAM

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.         The appellants/complainants have impugned the orders dt. 22.08.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum-II.  Vide impugned orders the complaint filed by the complainants was dismissed, being not maintainable.
2.         Facts in brief are that the complainants applied for allotment of a farm land to Air Force Naval Housing Board, Air Force Station, New Delhi (in short the OP).  Complainants made initial payment of Rs. 6,81,763/- on 05.02.1996.  The receipt of the entire amount was confirmed by the OP vide letter dt. 01.05-09-2001. Possession of the farm could not be taken as the basic facilities were not provided by the OP.  Complainants received a notice dt. 08.10.2001 from the District and Town Planner, Gurgaon informing them that the construction of the farm house was an unauthorised one.  Complainants were asked to appear on 18.10.2001.  Construction on the farm was cleared by the Town Planner vide its memo dated 31.10.2001. A legal notice was served upon the complainants by the LRs of one of the sellers of the farm land. It was stated in his legal notice that the land had been registered in favour of the complainant and his son by way of a fraud committed by the attorney of the deceased who died on 29.10.1991.  Power of attorney executed on 08.07.1996 was also the result of the fraud.  Complainants sent a copy of the death certificate of the deceased seller questioning the legality of the sale deed executed in his favour. 
3.         On 24.04.2005 complainants received summons from the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Nuh.  On 20.05.2005 the said suit was filed by the LRs of the seller of the farm land.  Complainant asked for refund of the amount deposited alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.  On 11.12.2005 complainant received a copy of the sale deed signed by the persons other than the person in whose favour the power of attorney was executed by the complainants.  Complainants challenged the legality of the sale deed.  Complainant sent reminder for refund of his amount but OP tried to justify the legality of the sale deed and refused to refund the same.  On 14.03.2006 complainants sent a letter to the Air Force Association asking for refund of the amount alongwith interest.  It was denied to him. On 15.01.2007 a cheque for an amount of Rs. 10,26,191/- was handed over to him.  Complainants asked for payment of interest on the said amount.  He served a notice asking for payment of interest by the OP @ 18% p.a. Complainants filed a complaint in a consumer forum and asked for directions against the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 14,60,816/- alongwith pendent-lite interest.  Compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lacs alongwith litigation charges of Rs. 25,000/- was also prayed for. OP in his written version stated that the AFNHB was not a service provider. It was a society registered under Societies Act 1860. It was submitted that AFNHB was constructing dwelling units for defence personnel of Air Force and Indian Navy on self financing basis and on “no profit no loss basis”.  The case, therefore, did not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
4.         Next objection raised by the OP was that the complainant approached the consumer court without availing of the remedy of arbitration as per Para No. 37 of Meter Brochure of AFNHB. It was only a welfare medium of the complainant.  Complainant was well aware of the development of the land which was already mutated in his favour. AFNHB moreover refunded the amount deposited alongwith interest as per rules. The AFNHB considering it a special case, refunded the amount of Rs. 6,81,763/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. for the period uptil 15.01.2004 and @ 3.5% p.a. for the period thereafter. 
5.         Ld. District Forum relied upon the undertaking cum receipt issued by the complainants while receiving the refund of the amount deposited alongwith interest from the OP. Contents of the said receipt are below:-

 

“Received Rs. 10,26,191/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Twenty Six Thousand and One Hundred Ninety One Only) vide cheque No. 0023399 dated 04 Jan 07 against withdrawal of my/our Farm Unit No. 2 in ‘Z’ site Farm Units and Registration No. GUZ2155 allotted to me/us towards full and final settlement of the various dues/claims pending against AFNHB on settlement and up to the satisfaction of me/us.”

 

6.         Clearly the complainant received the abovesaid amount without any threat, coercion or undue influence.  Now it does not lie in his mouth that he has not been paid compensation for the delayed payment.  Nothing on record suggests that the abovesaid payment was not received by the complainant out of his free will.  We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.  Appeal preferred by the appellant is, therefore, dismissed. 
7.         Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
8.         FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.