DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.49/2017
- Shri Harbhajan Singh Hampal, Super Senior Citizen
S/o Late Shri Surjan Singh (84 years old)
- Mrs. Jaswant Kaur Hampal,
W/o Shri Harbhajan Singh Hampal
- Shri Paramjiet Singh Hampal
S/o Shri Harbhajan Singh Hampal
All permanent Residents of
D-95, Saket, New Delhi-110017
….Complainants
Versus
- M/s SBVB Infotech Private Limited
(Through Mr. Sanjay Bhatia, Director),
Regd. Office at
G-207, Lane W-13, Sainik Farms,
New Delhi.
- Mr. Sanjay Bhatia,
Director of M/s SBVB Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
C/o G-207,Lane W-13, Sainik Farms,
New Delhi.
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 08.02.17 Date of Order : 09.04.18
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The case of the complainants, in nut-shell, is that they are joint owners of property bearing No. D-95, Saket, New Delhi (in short, the said property) and they entered into Collaboration Agreement with the OP on 14.02.2014 for construction of four storeyed building with basement and stilt parking on the said property on the terms and conditions contained therein. According to the complainants, OPs did not carry out the construction as per the Collaboration Agreement as detailed in the complaint and forced them to shift to the ground floor of the said property on 30.06.2016 under threat of stopping of payment of rent for the rented house rented by the builder to the complainants beyond 30.06.2016. According to the complainants, they had to pay Rs. 1,01,000/- to the Delhi Jal Board, Rs.30,000/- to BSES and Rs.1,00,000/- to South MCD under the NGT Act and Rs.15,000/- per month to the supervisor and sweeper w.e.f. 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2016. Therefore, pleading deficiency in giving required services, the complainants have filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to pay damages to the tune of Rs.13,93,600/- as per annexure-A along with interest to the complainants and to finish the pending unfinished work in the said property.
OP-1 in the reply has denied the averments made in the complaint and has inter-alia stated as under:-
“The complainants have already started living in the said property and are enjoying the said property to the fullest. In fact specifically speaking, after the completion of the construction of the property the Opposite Party offered the possession to the complainant and further the Opposite Party and the complainant mutually entered the settlement deed, much after the possession was given. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per the settlement deed also, the Opposite Parties have paid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs only), for the purpose of settling all the illegitimate claims made by the complainants(more specifically described in the notice dated 19.05.2016 sent by Adv. Parminder Singh Goindi) time to time and for putting an end to the harassment committed by the Complainants against the Opposite Parties for the fulfillment of those claims.”
It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
No separate reply has been filed on behalf of OP-2.
In the rejoinder to the reply of OP-1, complainant has denied that the Ops have settled all the claims of the complainants and have paid Rs. 8,00,000/- in lieu of the same.
Complainant No. 1 has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Shri Sanjay Bhatia, AR has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
On 23.01.18, counsel for the OPs brought the original deed of settlement which was shown to complainant No. 1. Complainant No. 1 admitted the execution of deed of settlement but denied the contents thereof. Complainant was directed to file the written submission in this regard but the complainant has not filed any such written submission.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the OP.
We have heard the complainant in person and the counsel for OPs. We have also gone through the file very carefully.
In our considered opinion, the matter is not required to be discussed in much detail and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons :-
- Complainant no. 1 has admitted the execution of the deed of settlement but has denied the contents thereof. Copy of the deed of settlement has been filed as annexure R-2. The same is dated 26.05.2016. Complainant filed the present complaint on 08.02.2017 but he did not mention anything about the execution of the deed of settlement on 26.05.2016 despite this being a very very important fact having direct bearing on the merits of the complaint. Therefore, the complainants are guilty of suppression of material facts.
- The execution of the deed of settlement has been admitted by the complainant. Even some correction has been made on page-2 of the deed of settlement which is also signed by the complainant No. 1. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the complainants had signed the deed of settlement after having gone through its contents and having understood the implication thereon.
Therefore, we do not agree with the complainant no. 1 that he does not know about the contents of the deed of settlement. Vide this deed of settlement, the complainants had decided to settle all the finances/ delays and claims / court cases/ notices of all nature more fully described in the notice and claims as sent by complainant’s Advocate Mr. Parminder Singh Goindi and claims and all pending construction in the said property as full and final settlement with all claims of whatsoever nature fully settled and paid. An amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was paid vide instrument dated 26.05.2016. The above amount had been received by the complainants and they were to complete the balance work at their own expenses. The notice referred to in the deed of settlement is dated 19.05.2016 copy of which has been filed as annexure RR. Therefore, all the claims of the complainants were settled by the OPs much before filing of the present complaint with no cause of action. Therefore, we say that the complainants have filed a false and frivolous complaint with some oblique motive. Keeping in view the fact that the complainant no. 1 is super senior citizen of 84 years we restrain ourselves from imposing any cost on the complainants. We accordingly dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 09.04.18.
