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.30/2011
SHRI A.R. BAJPAI,
S/O SH. GIRJA SHANKAR BAJPAI,
R/O D-97, 3RD FLOOR, LAJPAT NAGAR-I,
NEW DELHI
…………. Complainant
Vs.
M/S OMAXE LTD.,
OMAXE HOUSE,
7, LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE,
KALKAJI,
NEW DELHI-110019
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
…………..Respondent
Date of Order:10.06.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
Case of the complainant is that he booked a flat under the scheme of Future Plan and paid Rs.6 lakhs by cheque dated 21.5.2007 to OP. Complainant after passing of considerable time, approached the office of OP for allotment of said flat. However, OP on one pretext or the other has not given the satisfactory reply. Finally complainant vide letter dated 25.9.08, asked OP to cancel the registration and refund the amount. OP issued cheque dated 20.11.09 for Rs.5,30,149/- and deducted Rs.69851/- without any cause.
It is further stated that complainant is entitled to receive Rs.2,03,000/- as interest @ 14% p.a. w.e.f.10.6.2007 till 20.11.2009 on Rs.6,00,000/- and w.e.f. 21.11.2009 to 21.2.2010 on Rs.69,851/-.
Complainant has prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.3,80,027/- on account of negligence and deficiency of service and interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit of fee till realization.
OP in the written statement has stated that complainant is not a consumer as OP has returned a sum of Rs.5,30,149/- towards full and final settlement after deduction of dealer commission. The same was duly received and acknowledged by the complainant vide receipt/discharge letter dated 18.11.2009.
In fact the main plea of the OP is that complainant has received the aforesaid amount towards full ad final settlement and complainant has nowhere mentioned in his complaint that said receipt has been executed under fraud or undue influence or misrepresentation.
It is further stated in reply that complaint be rejected as complainant has suppressed material fact regarding execution of the receipt dated 18.11.09 towards full and final settlement. It is stated by OP that present complaint is not maintainable as complainant has voluntarily accepted amount towards full and final settlement.
We have heard Ld. Counsels for parties and carefully perused the record.
OP has placed on record a receipt/discharge letter dated 18.11.2009 wherein the complainant has specifically stated that he has received a sum of Rs.5,30,149/- vide cheque no.622124 dated 20.11.2009 towards full and final settlement against cancellation of his allotment and the aforesaid amount has been accepted by him against payment of Rs.6 lakhs. The complainant has specifically agreed and undertaken in this receipt/discharge letter that “neither I/we nor anyone claiming through me/us shall make any further claim of deducted amount/interest amount against the company in this regard since the refunded amount is mutually agreed and fully and finally settled amount and I/We bind myself/ourselves to deal with any such claims on our own and keep the said company absolved of any liability in this regard. I/we hereby undertake that henceforth I/we have no claim/right/lien over the aforesaid cancelled property and company is free to deal with it in any manner whatsoever at its discretion”.
The entire amount as per settlement was received by the complainant on 18.11.2009 vide cheque dated 20.11.2009. The cheque was duly encashed by him and this complaint has been filed on 17.1.2011 i.e. after more than one year of encashment of cheque. It is nowhere stated in the complaint that complainant was forced to accept the aforesaid amount. It is significant to note that complainant has stated in complaint that since plot was not allotted to him he has sought for refund of amount. The complainant has placed on record the letter dated 25.9.2008 wherein he has sought the refund of amount as he was in urgent need of money. He has nowhere stated in the letter that despite contacting OP number of times, no satisfactory reply was given by OP regarding the flat in question.
Once the amount has been accepted towards full and final settlement without any protest the complaint is not maintainable. Reference is placed on 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.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
