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.789/2008
- SMT. SANTOSH
W/O SH. RAJENDRA SINGH
R/O A-5/G-2, BLOCK-A, DILSHAD GARDEN, DELHI-110095
- SH. RAJENDRA SINGH
S/O SH. MAM CHAND
R/O A-5/G-2, BLOCK-A, DILSHAD GARDEN, DELHI-110095
…………. COMPLAINANTS
AND
Case No.788/2008
- SH. ANSHUL VERMA
S/O SH. N.K. VERMA
D-175, PUNDRIK VIHAR PITAMPURA, DELHI-110036
- SH. HIMANSHU VERMA
S/O SH. RAJENDRA SINGH
R/O A-5/G-2, BLOCK-A, DILSHAD GARDEN,
DELHI-110095
…………. COMPLAINANTS
Vs.
- M/S FERROUS TRIVENI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
R-13 GREATER KAILASH-I, NEW DELHI-110048
ALSO AT:- F-89/11, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110020
THROUGH : THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
- THE DIRECTORS
M/S FERROUS TRIVENI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
(M/S FERROUS TRIVENI GROUP)
R-13 GREATER KAILASH-I, NEW DELHI-110048
- SH. VIKAS KAROTIYA
MANAGER COMMERCIAL(TRIVENI INFR. DEV. CO. LTD.)
7TH FLOOR, EROS CORPORATE TOWER NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:18.10.2016
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.789/2008 are detailed.
The complainants herein booked a plot measuring 200 sq. yds with OP in their future project @ 6990 per sq. yd. and paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs vide cheque dated 22.12.05. The plots were not allotted and accordingly this complaint was filed with a prayer that OP directed to give the possession of plot as well as interest @ 18% on the amount deposited and Rs.1.5 lakhs has been sought for mental agony.
It is admitted fact that the OPs herein have already filed suit for declaration and injunction against claimants herein in the year 2008 and that suit has been disposed of as the matter settled between the parties and the complainant herein received a sum of Rs.3,82,438/-. Even the reply was not field by the complaints herein. The statement of the one of the complainant was recorded. The Ld. Civil judge vide order dated 180.9.09 held that “therefore in view of the statement of the defendant as well as payment received from the plaintiff, the application u/o 12 rule 6 CPC is disposed off. It is declared that the contract entered into the parties is frustrated and is not capable of enforcement as the plaintiff could not launch a duly sanctioned project within a period of 12 months next after receiving of deposit or up-till now and the transaction in question is rescinded; the receipts dt. 23.01.06 stands cancelled. The declaration is made without prejudice to the right and contentions of the parties, if any in accordance with law before any other court.”
The payment has already been received by the complainants herein alongwith interest. In fact complainants deposited Rs.3 lakhs and they have received a sum of Rs.3,82,438/-. No cause of action survives. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.
Likewise in case No.788/09 the Ld. Addl District Session Judge vide order dated 02.06.09 has held that “since the amount has been released in favour of the defendant, the contract stood frustrated and declaration to this effect is granted to the plaintiff to the effect that the contract entered into between the parties is frustrated and are not capable of enforcement as the plaintiff could not launch a duly sanction project within a period of twelve months next after receiving of deposit or up till now and the transaction in question is rescinded. However, this will be without prejudice to the rights of parties before any other court.”
The complainants have already received the amount. No cause of action survives. Hence 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) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
