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.485/2009
SH. AVINASH BANSAL
S/O SH. R.S. BANSAL
R/O G-123, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI-110019
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
ANS HOUSE, LGF, 144/2 ASHRAM,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014
- REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. AMIT JHA
C/O M-TECH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
ANS HOUSE, LGF, 144/2 ASHRAM,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014
…………..RESPONDENTS
AND
Case No.486/2009
SH. RAJNIKANT AGRAWAL
S/O SH. TEJ PRAKASH
R/O 2202, TOWER-1, PLANET GODREJ,
30 KESHAVRAO KHADYE MARG,
MAHALAKSHMI, EAST, NR. JACOB CIRCLE,
MEMBAI-400011
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
ANS HOUSE, LGF, 144/2 ASHRAM,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014
- REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. AMIT JHA
C/O M-TECH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
ANS HOUSE, LGF, 144/2 ASHRAM,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:08.01.2016
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.485/09 are detailed.
In brief the case of the complainant is that he had booked a residential flat with OP in Goa in their project namely “The Beach Village Goa” and had opted for payment Plan-III and had also given an advance of Rs.5,15,625/- vide receipt no.2648 dated 26.8.2006. The total consideration price of the said flat was Rs.20,62,500/-.
It is further stated that complainant was in need of money due to some financial problem in his family and accordingly surrendered the booking of the flat and filled up the requisite form provided by OP for the same on 22.07.08.
It is further stated that thereafter on 24.7.08 OP issued post dated cheques No.936693 dated 17.10.08 for Rs.5,36,611/- and No.936694 dated 16.8.08 for Rs.82,951/- towards payment of the principal amount as well as the interest. However the cheque No.936696 was dishonoured on 23.8.08 for the reason “funds insufficient” in the account of OP. When complainant approached OP regarding the said bounced cheque, OP told him that since OP did not have enough funds and asked complainant to wait for some time and OP will tell complainant when to deposit both the cheques.
It is further stated that after repeated reminders, Mr. Amit Jha, Director of OP Company assured complainant that OP would provide him with a demand draft instead of a cheque and called him again and again in office and thereafter even stopped attending any phone calls and harassed complainant by delaying the payment and that till date OP have not made any payment to complainant. Thereafter complainant submitted a letter to Mr. Amit Jha, Director of OP stating therein about the non-cooperative attitude of OP and about the bounced cheque and once again requested OP to refund the money at the earliest. That letter was received by Mr. Amit Jha on behalf of OP. Ultimately a legal notice dated 04.6.09 was sent.
It is further stated that instead of paying the entire amount to complainant, OP on 19.6.09 through their counsel alongwith Mr. Yashwant Arora(Financer of OP) orally offered to complainant(represented by his brother-in-law Mr. Avinash Bansal) for paying only the principal amount of Rs.5,15,625/- in numerous monthly instalments and without any interest on the ground that OP do not have sufficient funds.
It is prayed that OP be directed to pay principal amount of Rs.5,15,625/-and the agreed amount i.e.Rs.1,03,937/- of interest alongwith compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-.
OP in their reply took the plea that the present complaint is not maintainable as complainant is seeking recovery of money by making the present case as case of deficiency in service. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain suit for recovery of money as the dispute comes within the jurisdiction of Civil Court only.
That as per rule a 20% of the booking amount is to be deducted in case of surrender of the booking. It is not disputed that those cheques were issued however it is stated that the cheques were towards security and the complainant was assured that he would be paid the amount on return of cheques but complainant put the said cheque into Op’s account for clearance with malafide intentions.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the records.
The only contention of OP is that the cheques were issued as security but there is nothing on the record to suggest that the cheques were issued as security. The fact of the matter is that OP has agreed to refund a sum of Rs.5,36,611/- towards principal and Rs.82,951/- towards the interest i.e. a total sum of Rs.6,19,562/-. The cheques were accordingly issued. However, one of the cheques was bounced. Thereafter complainant contacted OP and OP assured to make the payment by way of bank draft. The payment was not made even the letter was sent to Sh Amit Jha on 22.4.09 which was duly received by him. Even after service of legal notice dated 04.6.09 the amount was not paid.
In fact once the OP has agreed to refund the amount and issued cheques then the non payment of amount by the OP, as agreed by them, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.
The complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.6,19,562/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from November 2008 as the cheque for Rs.5,36,611/- was encashable on 17.10.08 as well as entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.,5,000/- towards litigation cost.
In case No.486/09 complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.6,19,562/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from November 2008 as the cheque for Rs.5,36,611/- was encashable on 16.10.08 as well as entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.,5,000/- towards litigation cost.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
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
