Delhi

East Delhi

CC/400/2016

AJAY GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUPERTECH REAL TECH - Opp.Party(s)

16 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 400/16

 

Shri Ajay Goyal

S/o Shri Bhushan Lal Goyal

R/o A-38, Amar Colony

Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi

New Delhi – 110 041                                                   ….Complainant

Vs.    

M/s. Supertech Real Tech Pvt. Ltd.

Oxy Homez

4, Savita Vihar Main Road

Delhi – 110 092                                                               …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 02.08.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 16.04.2019

Judgement Passed on: 18.04.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Ajay Goyal against              M/s. Supertech Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant booked a flat with         M/s. Supertech Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. (OP) and paid amount of Rs. 50,343/- on 10.02.2011, Rs. 1,98,580/- on 21.05.2011 and Rs. 96,138/- on 02.11.2011.  The complainant applied for loan for balance payment from the LIC Housing Finance.  

            It was stated that the complainant requested to OP to issue the Builder Buyer Agreement as it was necessary for approval for loan, but OP did not provide the same.  Due to non-availability of Builder Buyer Agreement, loan of the complainant was not approved.  When respondent issued the Builder Buyer Agreement, immediately the complainant submitted the same with the bank.  The bank approved the loan and the complainant made the payment to the builder.

It was further stated that the complainant was surprised when he received a demand of interest for a sum of Rs. 65,000/-.  He visited the office of OP for the same, but OP did not give any satisfactory reply.  The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- on 30.05.2011.  Again, the complainant received a demand letter dated 01.07.2012 in which no interest was shown. 

It was stated that under pressure, the complainant made the payment of Rs. 65,000/- on account of interest as OP threatened to the complainant that if he will not deposit the interest, the flat will be cancelled. 

The complainant sold his flat to Mr. Vineet Kumar on 11.12.2015.  He again approached to OP for refund of interest amount, but did not get any satisfactory reply.  It was stated that due to act and activities of OP, the complainant suffered mental pain and agony.  Hence, he has requested for directions to OP to refund the illegally charged interest amount of             Rs. 65,000/-; compensation of Rs. 80,000/- on account of mental agony and pain and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.    

3. M/s. Supertech Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. (OP), they have stated that the complaint was not maintainable as both the parties to the agreement had resolved their dispute and the complainant settled all his claims and payment by giving an undertaking dated 19.11.2015, signed by himself.  They have denied other facts also.
4.  

 5.        In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

            In defence, OP have examined Shri Yatender Gupta, Director of OP, who have also deposed on oath.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. 

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of M/s. Supertech Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. (OP) that the complainant have made full and final settlement and have undertaken not to claim any amount before any court of law or any other legal forum. 

            He has further argued that he has sold the flat to the third person and by doing so, he no more remains a Consumer.

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have argued that no doubt, he has sold the flat and have undertaken not to claim any amount from OP, but he was entitled for the said amount as the dues pertains to the said flat when he was the owner of the same.

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the part6ies, a look has to be made to the testimony of the complainant as well as                Shri Yatender Gupta and the documents placed on record.  Admittedly, complainant have executed an undertaking on 19.11.2015 saying that he has settled all issues and cleared all the dues payable to the builder and he has no claim whatsoever against the builder and have further undertaken not to claim any amount before any court of law or any other legal forum.  When the complainant have executed this undertaking on 19.11.2015 and he has instituted the complaint on 02.08.2016.

            In the presence of this undertaking, he no more remains a Consumer and was not entitled for the amount claimed in the complaint.  That being so, his complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                          (SUKHDEV SINGH)

              Member                                                                        President