JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant / petitioner was allotted a residential plot by the opposite party / respondent on 9.8.2007 in Ansal Township, Rewari and a letter reserving plot No. B-38 in the aforesaid project was issued to him after receiving an advance payment of Rs.5,20,000/-.  He was required to attend the office of the respondent along with a Demand Draft/ Cheque of Rs.12,33,738/- as per the calculation sheet and payment schedule attached to the aforesaid letter and sign the application form in the standard format.  The payment was to be made by 30.8.2007, failing which the registration money was to be returned to him.  As per the payment plan attached to the aforesaid letter, either he could make cash down payment with 4% discount or he could make payment in installments as per the following Time-Linked-Payment Plan:

2.      Vide letter dated 13.5.2011, the respondent refunded an amount of Rs.5,20,000/- to the complainant.  Vide her letter dated 27.5.2011, the complainant reiterated her earlier request made to the respondent to accept the outstanding amount of Rs.32.27 lacs or refund the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- with interest @ 21% on equitable basis.  The opposite party vide its letter dated 30.5.2011, informed the complainant that she had defaulted in making payment of the installments and therefore, as per the terms and conditions of allotment, 20% of the basic cost could be forfeited due to default on her part but, as a special case, they were refunding the entire amount of Rs.5,20,000/- to her by way of the cheque annexed to the said letter.  It was further stated in the aforesaid letter that the aforesaid payment was in full and final settlement of account against the cancellation and refund of the unit allotted to her and therefore, she shall have no further lien on the aforesaid plot.  The complainant encashed the cheque of Rs.5,20,000/- sent by the respondent along with above referred letter and thereafter, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent which inter-alia alleged that the complainant had failed to pay the balance sale consideration, despite several reminders sent to her.  The allotment, according to the respondent was therefore cancelled and the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- paid by the complainant was refunded to her.

4.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 22.01.2015, directed the respondent to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant on the refund amount of Rs.5,20,000/- from the date of deposit till the date of refund, along with compensation quantified at Rs.40,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.5500/-.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 12.5.2016, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and consequently dismissed the complaint.  Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

5.      A perusal of the payment plan annexed to the allotment letter would show that the complainant had an option either to pay the entire sale consideration on cash down payment basis availing 4% discount or she could make the balance payment in installments.  In case of the complainant opting for Time linked payment plan, 95% was to be made within eleven months on allotment and the balance 5% payment at the time of offer of possession.

6.      The authorized representative of the complainant, who also happens to be her husband states that the complainant had opted for Time linked payment plan.  He however, admits that payment in terms of the schedule, forming part of the time linked payment plan was not made by the complainant.  According to him, the payment was not made in terms of the above referred schedule because the respondent had failed to carry out the development of the plot.  In my view, considering the time linked payment plan opted by the complainant, she was required to make payment in installments, irrespective of the pace of the development.  Only after making payment, in terms of the time linked payment plan opted by her, the complainant could make a grievance on account of the delay, if any, on the part of the respondent in completing the development and offering possession of the plot allotted to her, because the payments agreed to be made by her were time bound in nature and was not linked with the pace of the development.  Admittedly, the complainant did not pay 50% of the sale consideration before allotment, next installment within three months of allotment, the second next allotment within six months of allotment, the third next installment within nine months of allotment and the fourth next within eleven months of allotment.  She having defaulted in making timely payment of the sale consideration, the respondent was well within its rights in cancelling the allotment.

7.      As noted earlier, the respondent vide its letter dated 30.5.2011, had remitted amount of Rs.5,20,000/- to the complainant in full and final settlement of her claim. The complainant encashed the cheque of Rs.5,20,000/- sent to her by the respondent, without any protest before encashing the said cheque.  Though, a protest letter was later on sent to the respondent on 19.6.2011, the said letter would be of no consequence since the cheque had already been encashed before sending the aforesaid letter.  Having encashed the cheque of Rs.5,20,000/- sent to her by the respondent, the complainant is estopped from claiming an compensation from the respondent in connection with the plot allotted to her.

8.      Thus, firstly the complainant defaulted in making timely payment of the installments and secondly she accepted the payment of Rs.5,20,000/- sent to her by the respondent in full and final settlement of her claim, without any protest before encashing the said cheque.  The complainant, therefore, is not entitled to any further payment from the respondent.

          The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.