CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.225/2011

DR. SURUCHI SINGHAL &

DR. BRIJ MOHAN SINGHAL,

B-13, SHANKER GARDEN, NEW DELHI-110018

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

ANS HOUSE, 144/2 ASHRAM,

MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014

                                                …………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.297/2011

SH. RAJNISH KUMAR

F-33, VIKASPURI, NEW DELHI-110018

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

ANS HOUSE, 144/2 ASHRAM,

MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014

(THROUGH DIRECTOR)

                                                …………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.298/2011

SH. VINOD SHARMA

F-33, VIKASPURI, NEW DELHI-110018

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

ANS HOUSE, 144/2 ASHRAM,

MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014

(THROUGH DIRECTOR)

                                                …………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.305/2011

SH. VINAY KUMAR GUPTA

34 MAIN BAZAAR, NAJAFGARH,

NEW DELHI-110043

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                            

                                                Vs.

M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

ANS HOUSE, 144/2 ASHRAM,

MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014

(THROUGH DIRECTOR)

                                                …………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.306/2011

SH. ANSHUL MOHAN SINGHAL

C/O DR. B.M. SINGHAL,

B-13, SHANKER GARDEN,

NEW DELHI-110018

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

ANS HOUSE, 144/2 ASHRAM,

MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014

(THROUGH DIRECTOR)

                                                …………..RESPONDENT

                                                            Date of Order:04.05.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

By this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid complaints as the common question of fact and law is involved.  For the sake of reference, facts of case no.225/11 are detailed. 

In brief the case of complainant is that he booked a flat in Camellia Garden project of OP at Bhiwadi Rajasthan and paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-on 16.11.2006 as advance registration amount.  OP assured that possession shall be handed over within 24 months from the date of launching i.e. 24.9.2006 otherwise OP company will pay Rs.2/- per sq. ft. after the expiry of 24 months i.e. Rs.3000/- pm w.e.f. October 2008 and in case one wishes to withdraw form the upcoming scheme then OP shall refund the entire amount within 30 days from the date of submission of refund application.

It is further stated that vide letter dated 07.04.2007 OP informed complainant that the construction on the site has already started on 04.12.2006 and demanded payment of first instalment.  Complainant paid Rs.2 lakhs on 07.05.2007.  Thereafter further payment of Rs.93,750/- was made on 23.05.2008.  Complainant visited the site and was shocked to see that no major construction has taken place and there is no identification of flats even after expiry of more than four years though OP has allotted flat No.203 to complainant in Tower-C.  Complainant accordingly sought refund of his amount.  The same was not refunded despite notice.  It is prayed that OP be directed to refund the registration booking amount and two instalments paid alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and also to pay Rs.2,51,000/- towards compensation and Rs.21,000/- towards litigation expenses.

OP in the reply took the plea that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is the complainant who has committed breach of construction link payment plan and has not paid the instalment and as per the rules, OP is entitled for deduction of 20% of the booking amount.  While case was pending for final arguments, OP placed on record documents showing that complainant has amicably settled the matter with OP and has received payment of Rs.4,68,750/-.  That letter is reproduced as under:-

“I Suruchi Singhal d/o Dr. B.M. Singhal hereby confirm and declare that my grievance against M/s M-Tech Developers Limited which arise due to schedule of refund of my advance booking/registration amount for surrender of my booking in this company’s residential project at Bhiwadi has been amicably settled with my free will and consent and without any undue influence or coercion and no grievances are pending against this company or any of its Director/Employee.  Now, I have received my entire amount i.e. Rs.2,68,750/- on 06.09.2011 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 21.09.2011[total amount(principal) Rs.4,68,750/-] from M-Tech Developers Ltd.

It is, therefore, prayed that my complaint against the company may be treated as withdrawn, if any FIR on this basis has been registered against M-Tech Developers Ltd. the same be got cancelled.  I will never file any Criminal Complaint/Civil suit/CDRF against M-Tech Developers Limited before any court or any investigating agency in future.”

Nobody turned up for complainant to address the arguments. 

We have heard Ld. Counsels for OP and carefully perused the written arguments placed on record. 

It is evident from the letter for the settlement dated 21.09.2011 placed on record that complainant has settled the matter amicably with OP out of her free will without any undue influence and received the entire amount as per settlement. 

Reliance is placed in the case of Amit Chawla & Others Vs M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. CPJ 2014 (CONS.) Cases No.901(NC) where it was held that there is nothing on record that appellants were compelled by the respondent at any stage to settle claims of lesser amount than the claim made by them.  Once the appellants have received the amount unconditionally the appellants ceased to be consumer.

It is also useful to refer to case of Indu Bala Satija Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority 111(2013) CPJ 475(NC) where it was held that once petitioner received amount unconditionally and got cheque enchased petitioner ceases to be ‘consumer’.  There was nothing on the record to show that petitioner was compelled by the respondent at any stage either to surrender the plot or take refund.  Hence complaint is dismissed.  In that case Hon’ble National Commission has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 311 – wherein it was concluded that the encashment of the cheques amounted to acceptance of the amount in full and final settlement of the claim.  It was further laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the protest and non-acceptance must be conveyed before the cheques were encashed and if the cheques were encashed without protest, then it must be held that the offer stood unequivocally accepted and offeree cannot be permitted to change his mind after unequivocable acceptance of the offer.

For the reasons stated above, complaints are dismissed.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

         (D.R. TAMTA)                                                             (A.S. YADAV)

             MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT