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.236/2009

MS BABITA SEHRAWAT

H.NO.3337/A V&PO TUGLAKABAD,

NEW DELHI-110044

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S SWATANTRA LAND & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED

M-95, LOWER GROUND FLOOR,

GREATER KAILASH-II,

NEW DELHI-110048

                                    …………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.237/2009

MR. TUHI RAM SEHRAWAT

H.NO.3337/A V&PO TUGLAKABAD,

NEW DELHI-110044

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S SWATANTRA LAND & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED

M-95, LOWER GROUND FLOOR,

GREATER KAILASH-II,

NEW DELHI-110048

                                    …………..RESPONDENT

                        Date of Order:12.07.2016

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.236/09 are detailed. 

The complainant in case No.236/09 Ms. Babita Sehrawat is wife of Shri Tuhi Ram Sehrawat who is complainant in case No.237/09.

In brief the case of the complainant is that she had booked a flat measuring 1100 sq. ft. covered area in sector 75-76 at Faridabad in the project of OP and paid a total amount of Rs.4,86,000/-.  Complainant did not receive any response from the OP in relation to development and progress at site of work.  Complainant visited the work site and found that no work has been started.  Complaint met the officials of OP number of times but no satisfactory response was given.  Ultimately on 26.08.08 complainant sought refund of the money deposited by her.  Finally OP asked complainant to attend the office of OP on 26.9.08 for getting the refund of money.  On 26.09.08 complainant was shown two post dated cheques drawn in her favour aggregating to Rs.4,86,000/- by the OP.  Complainant protested with the OP that why interest is not being paid on the deposit as per the agreement/application.  On this OP assured and promised complainant that they would pay the interest on money deposited within one month.  However, it was stated by OP that they would give her the cheques only when she sign the documents prepared by them.  Since the complainant had no choice, she was forced to sign a lot of blank paper and documents including non-judicial stamp papers.  Only after that post dated cheques were finally handed over to the complainant by the OP.  Complainant presented the post dated cheques for encashment on due dates and the cheques were cleared accordingly.  The payment made by OP was of Rs.4,86,000/- which was exclusive of due interest.  Accordingly this complaint is filed whereby complainant has sought payment of interest mount of Rs.1,02,190/- alongwith an interest @ 18% from the date of receiving of refund of deposit from the OP till the date of actual payment plus Rs.1 lakh towards compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.

OP in the reply took the plea that complainant out of her own free will and without any force, fraud or coercion has sought the refund of the amount.  The amount of Rs.4,86,000/- was returned to the complainant.  Complaint has deposited the original documents.  The allegation of the complainant that she was forced to enter into any settlement is false.  Nothing prevented complainant from approaching the police.  It is prayed that complainant be dismissed.

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

In fact complainant has submitted an affidavit to the OP and in para 4 and 5 of affidavit, she has stated that she out of her own consent and free will has cancelled the aforesaid registration for allotment of plot and on her request OP has returned a sum of Rs.4,86,000/- to her on account of cancellation of her registration as full and final settlement of her account and have relinquished all her right, title and interest and she shall have no charge, lien or claim against OP.  In para 6 of affidavit it is further stated that she will not claim any damages and whatsoever on account of the said cancellation.  The receipt was also executed by the complainant wherein she has clearly stated that aforesaid refund has been made on her request and she has received amount of Rs.4,86,000/- towards full and final settlement.  It is evident from the document placed on the record that complainant has settled the matter out of her free will.  The story of the complainant that she was forced to sign the aforesaid documents is not convincible and if it was so nothing prevented her from not encashing the cheques given to her.  It is admitted fact that she got the cheques encashed.  The first cheque was received on 07.09.2008 and another cheque on 12.10.2008.

Likewise complainant Sh. Tuhi Ram Sehrawat submitted an application for cancellation of registration and return of Rs.4,86,000/- towards full and final settlement.  He too filed an affidavit regarding receiving Rs.4,86,000/- towards full and final settlement.

It is useful to refer to 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) 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.

Keeping in view the above fact, the 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)                     (RITU GARODIA)                        (A.S. YADAV)

        MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT