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.149/2012

SH. CHANDRESH SETHI,

S/O LATE SH. SUBHASH CHANDER SETHI,

R/O A-79, SOUTH EXTENSION-II,

NEW DELHI-110049

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

VS.

M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.,

ANS HOUSE, 144/2, ASHRAM,

MATHURA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110014

………….. RESPONDENT

Date of Order:04.01.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that he booked a plot in Camellia Garden-2 in the project of OP at Bhiwadi and paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs on 23.11.06 and Rs.2 lakhs on 15.03.07 thus a total sum of Rs.4 lakhs was paid by complainant.  However the allotment was not made by OP.  Rather OP vide letter dated 07.01.2010 informed complainant that they will give the allotment letter for the plot on/before 28.02.2010 and in case they are unable to give the allotment before the said date, they will refund the entire booking amount alongwith interest.  The contention of the complainant is that only the principal amount was refunded and the interest was not paid.  It is further submitted by the complainant that even a complaint was made in the EOW Crime Branch, Delhi against OP.  It is submitted that the signature of the complainant were forcibly obtained on the letter dated 05.05.2010.  It is further stated that OP was bound to pay the interest as the allotment was not made by OP.  It is prayed that OP be directed to pay interest. 

On the other hand, OP has stated that complainant is not a consumer as he has already obtained principal amount deposited by him towards the full and final settlement and once the amount has been refunded, complainant ceases to be a consumer 

We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and carefully perused the record.

It is not in dispute that complainant paid a s sum of Rs.4 lakhs.  The entire controversy revolves around the letter dated 10.04.2010 and 05.05.2010.  Vide letter dated 10.04.2010, complainant has received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs vide cheque dated 09.04.2010 and vide letter dated 05.05.2010 complainant has received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs vide cheque dated 04.5.10.  In both letters, complainant has specifically stated that he has amicably settled the matter with his 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 and complaint against this company may be treated as withdrawn and he will never file any criminal/civil complaint against OP before any investigation agencies in future.

It is further submitted by complainant that he was forced to sign the aforesaid letters and he has written a letter dated 09.5.10 to office of DCP regarding the fraud played by OP.  The said letter was received in the office of DCP on 25.05.2010.  Obviously the complainant has written the aforesaid letter after receiving of the entire amount of Rs.4 lakhs towards settlement and there is nothing to suggest that he was forced or undue influence was exercised on him at the time of writing letter dated 10.04.2010 and 05.05.2010 whereby he has specifically stated that he has amicably settled the matter with his 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 and complaint against this company may be treated as withdrawn and he will never file any criminal/civil complaint against OP before any investigation agencies in future.

It is settled law that once the complainant has received amount as per settlement, then he ceases to be a consumer.  Reference is placed on the 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 (2006-3) PLR 76(SC) – 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 aforesaid reasons, complaint is 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