Haryana

StateCommission

A/1076/2014

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Navneet Kumar Handa - Opp.Party(s)

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.1076 of 2014

                                                          Date of Institution: 25.11.2014

Date of Decision: 21.10.2016

 

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., 115 Ansal Bhawan, 16 KG Marg, New Delhi 110001, through its authorized signatory Sh.Rakesh Malik, Assistant Manager (Legal).

 …..Appellant

                                      VERSUS

Navneet Kumar Handa S/o Late Sh.Madan Mohan Handa, r/o H.No.1176, Sector 13, Karnal, Haryana

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.Ajay Ghangas, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

None for the Respondent.

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          It was alleged by the complainant that he booked a flat with opposite party (O.P.) on 08.02.2006 and deposited Rs.2,50,000/- at that time.  It was agreed at that time that the possession would be delivered within 12 months from the booking.  Rest of the amount was to be deposited in instalments after allotment and final payment was to be paid at the time of delivery of possession. As per Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act 1975 and Rules 1976, as mentioned in the complaint, project was to be completed within two years subject to force majure. Vide letter dated 15.12.2006 O.P. confirmed the allotment of flat No.10.  He further deposited amount from time to time with the O.P. total amounting to Rs.4,41,786/-, but, when he went to the site it was found that construction had not started. Vide letters dated 27.02.2009, 31.03.2009 and 01.07.2009 O.P. was asked to refund the amount deposited by him, but, vide letter dated 22.03.2010 he was asked to deposit Rs.3,78,674.50 on the ground that working was in progress whereas it was not so.  As possession was not delivered in time O.P. be directed to refund the amount deposited by him alongwith interest and compensation qua mental harassment etc.

2.      It was alleged by O.P. that matter about refund of amount was settled in between them and affidavit dated 06.03.2013 was executed to this effect. Cheque dated 07.06.2013 for Rs.4,41,787.50 paise was handed over to complainant as full and final settlement. When matter was settled he was not having any right to file the complaint.  As complainant did not deposit amount as per agreement, reminders were issued to him from time to time, so he was not entitled for the compensation as claimed by him.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.10.2014 and directed O.P to pay Rs.4,41,787/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its deposit till its r ealization..

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

 

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that when the matter was settled for Rs.4,41,787/- and cheque was issued in favour of the complainant, he was not having any right to file the complaint. When cheque is already handed over to the complainant it cannot be directed again to pay amount in question.

7.      On the other hand learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that he did not receive cheque dated 07.06.2013, copy of which is Ex.R-3.  He never agreed to receive this amount. There was no fault on his part and O.P. was liable to pay amount alongwith interest as directed by learned District Forum.

8.      As per facts mentioned above it is clear that O.P. is not denying his liability to pay Rs.4,41,487.50 paise as directed by learned District forum.  However it is alleged that cheque dated 07.06.2013 Ex.R-3 was issued in favour of the complainant.  O.P. can verify from the bank concerned whether this amount has been withdrawn by complainant or not. If this cheque is not encashed as yet then O.P. pay this amount to the complainant and not otherwise.

9.      Now the question comes about interest.  As per documents available on the file it is clear that the complainant did not deposit amount in time and that is why reminders Ex.C-5 cancellation letter Ex.C-7 etc. were issued.  As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in First appeal No.06 of 2014 titled as  Randhir Singh Vs. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers (P) Ltd. decided on 27.11.2014 complainant cannot ask for interest when he is also at fault.  For ready reference Para No.10 of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-

“It is an admitted fact that both parties are at fault in this case.  As per above findings of the State Commission, admittedly the respondent had not developed the site and was not in a position to deliver the possession.  Be that as it may, the appellants also in this case were defaulters. When appellants themselves were the defaulters, therefore under such circumstances, they are not entitled for any interest.  On this issue, we are in full agreement with the reasonings given by the State Commission.”

10.    If the same analogy is applied in this case, then complainant is not entitled for interest and impugned order about interest is set aside.

11.    With this modification, appeal is disposed of.

12.     The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

October 21st, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.