Delhi

East Delhi

CC/306/2016

AJAY SETHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CROSSING INFRA - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  306/16

 

Shri Ajay Sethi

S/o Late Shri V.K. Sethi

R/o House No. 42, South Anarkali

Krishna Nagar, Delhi – 110 051                                               …….Complainant

Vs.

 

M/s. Crossing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

(Through its Director)

Unit No. 102, 1^st Floor, V4 Tower

Plot No. 14, Community Centre

Karkarooma, Delhi – 110 092       

Also at:

NH-24, Crossing Republic

Dundahera Gaon, Ghaziabad

Near ABES Engineering College

UP – 201 016                                                                                          ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 09.06.2016

Judgment Reserved on: 03.04.2019

Judgment Passed on: 15.04.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Ajay Sethi against M/s. Crossing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant booked a residential flat vide ID No. 126 in the township of OP known as “Crossing Republic, Dundahera, Ghaziabad, UP and paid a total amount of  Rs. 7,13,968/- as follows:

Amount	Dated	Cheque/Cash	Drawn on
1,46,000/-	16.12.2006	Cheque	Standard Chartered Bank
5,21,850/-	27.11.2006	Cheque	SBI
36,000/-	27.11.2006	Cash	-
10,000/-	27.11.2006	Cheque	SBI

 

            The complainant approached M/s. Crossing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (OP) to take the possession of the flat on 24.06.2008, but he did not get any information about the status of the said flat.  He visited the office of OP several times and sent letters/reminders dated 11.07.208, 07.01.2009, 16.01.2009 and 16.09.2011 to the effect of handing over the possession of flat, but all in vain.  Finally, the complainant sent legal notice on 01.01.2010 and again on 30.04.2016 which was neither replied nor complied.      

            It was stated that after a period of 8 years, the complainant received a cheque amounting to Rs. 6,77,968/- dated 25.12.2014 stating that National Green Tribunal has raised objection to the said planning project. 

            It was further stated that M/s. Crossing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (OP) illegally withheld the principle amount for a period of 8 years and earned profit.  Due to the acts and omission on the part of OP, the complainant has suffered mental loss, agony, inconvenience and harassment.  Thus, he has prayed for directions to OP to release the theft claim amount as per the present market value; compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.

During the course of proceedings, the complainant have moved an application for amendment in the prayer clause in which he has prayed for interest @ 18% p.a. with remaining principle amount of Rs. 36,000/-.

3.         In the WS, filed on behalf of M/s. Crossing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (OP), they have taken various pleas.  They have stated that the complainant was a defaulter since from the initial stage and never made his due payments on time.  As the complainant failed to take the possession by making the due payment, OP was forced to cancel the booking of the flat and accordingly cancellation letter was issued to the complainant vide letter dated 26.11.2009 and 15.12.2009. 

            It was also stated that vide letter dated 15.12.2014, the complainant moved a written request for seeking refund of the money, deposited by him.  Considering the request of the complainant, OP issued the refund cheque of Rs. 6,77,968/- dated 25.12.2014, which was already encashed.  Other facts have also been denied.

4. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas. 

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined himself on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as letter dated 24.06.2008 (Annexure P-1/1), reminder dated 11.07.2008, 07.01.2009 and 16.01.2009 (Annexure P-1/2 to 1/4), copy of legal notice dated 01.01.2010  and reminder dated 19.07.2011, 07.09.2011, 24.09.2011 and 30.04.2017 with receipt (Annexure P-1/5 to 1/9).

            In defence, M/s. Crossing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (OP) have examined Shri Anil Tyagi, who have also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of company resolution (Ex.R/1), copy of application form (Ex.R/2), copy of allotment letter (Ex.R/3), copy of letter dated 22.10.2009 and 31.10.2009 (Ex.R/4), copy of cancellation letter dated 26.11.2009 and 15.12.2009 (Ex.R/5), copy of application and affidavit dated 15.12.2014 and cheque dated 25.12.2014 (Ex.R/6 colly).

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material paced on record.  It has been argued on behalf of M/s. Crossing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (OP) that the complainant have got the refund of the amount in full and final settlement.  He has further argued that having his received the full amount in full and final settlement, he no more remains as a Consumer. 

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant have argued that the complainant have not received the full amount which he has deposited with M/s. Crossing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (OP).  He has further stated that he has received the amount after deduction.

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the testimony of complainant as well as Shri Anil Tyagi of      M/s. Crossing Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (OP).  If a look is made to the testimony of Shri Anil Tyagi of OP and particularly to the documents (Ex.R/6) on which the fate of the case of the complainant rests, it has been noticed in affidavit executed by the complainant as per Ex.R/6, he has stated that he on his own consent and sweet will have cancelled the application/registration of flat. 

            He has further stated that he was not claimed any dues, damages etc. direct or indirect, whatsoever, on account of above said registration, deduction of administrative or any other charges.  Thus, from this, it is evident that complainant have got the flat cancelled on his own and have undertaken not to claim any damages.  When he has got the flat cancelled on his own and have undertaken not to claim any damages, his complaint does not survive.  He no more remains a Consumer.

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that complaint of the complainant deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member 

 

           

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                      President