Delhi District Court
Sh. Vikas Meena vs M/S. Vian Infrastructure Ltd on 30 January, 2012
ID No.02401C0182752010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA : ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE (CENTRAL07) : TIS HAZARI COURT : DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 455/2010
Sh. Vikas Meena
E3, MCD Flats,
Bhamashah Market,
Kamla Nagar,
Delhi110007. ............. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/s. Vian Infrastructure Ltd.
3E14, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi110055. ............ DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 04.05.2010
Date when the case reserved for order : 30.01.2012
Date of Order : 30.01.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,26,480/ along with pendent elite and future interest @ 12 % p.a. against the defendant.
2. In the plaint, it is stated that in the year 2006, Ms. Ballo Devi booked a plot with the defendant which was subsequently transferred in the 1/5 Sh. Vikas Meena Vs. M/s. Vian Infrastructure Ltd. name of the plaintiff. From time to time, the plaintiff made the payments to the defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that an FIR was registered against the defendant and the defendant had not even acquired the land for development. Therefore, on 23.02.2010, the plaintiff decided to cancel the booking and intimated the defendant to that effect and also called upon it to refund the money but of no use. Hence, the present suit.
3. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendant. However, the defendant failed to appear despite service. Hence, the defendant was proceeded exparte on 24.11.2010.
4. The plaintiff tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and the same is Ex. PW1/A. The plaintiff relied upon the receipts dated 15.01.2009 Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2, receipt dated 28.12.2008 Ex.PW1/3 and letter dated 10.02.2009 Ex.PW1/4.
5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the material available on record.
6. Case of the plaintiff is that initially his grand mother booked a plot with the defendant; subsequently, the said booking was transferred in his name on 16.01.2009; vide receipt dated 16.01.2009, the plaintiff paid Rs. 15,000/ to the defendant; and vide temporary receipt dated 28.12.2008, the plaintiff paid Rs. 12,500/ to the defendant. Vide letter dated 23.02.2010, the plaintiff canceled the allotment and requested the defendant to refund Rs. 2/5 Sh. Vikas Meena Vs. M/s. Vian Infrastructure Ltd. 2,91,500/ along with the interest because in January 2010, the plaintiff came to know that an FIR had been lodged against the defendant.
7. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff relied upon the temporary receipts dated 28.12.2008 and 15.01.2009 which are Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3. In the plaint, it is pleaded that in the year 2006, the grand mother of the plaintiff paid Rs. 2,64,000/ for the plot vide customer I.D. No. J718. It implies that the said payment was made in the year 2006. To substantiate the same, the plaintiff relied upon the temporary receipt Ex.PW1/1. Firstly, the plaintiff has not filed the original receipt of deposit of the amount. Secondly, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had issued the temporary receipt also as mentioned about receipt dated 28.12.2008. Thirdly, the said receipt is executed in the name of the plaintiff. However, it is the own case of the plaintiff that the said booking was transferred in his name on 16.01.2009. As such, there was no occasion for the defendant to issue even the temporary receipt for the said amount in the name of the plaintiff on 15.01.2009. The receipt no. J 3301 as mentioned in the receipt is contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiff wherein he pleaded that grand mother of the plaintiff deposited the amount vide customer ID No. J718. Hence, an adverse can be drawn against the plaintiff.
8. To prove the payment of Rs. 15,000/ the plaintiff relied upon the receipt dated 15.01.2009 Ex.PW1/2. Firstly, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant issued the temporary receipt in favour of the plaintiff for the said payment. Secondly, it is the own case of the plaintiff that the booking was transferred in his name on 16.01.2009. Hence, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to deposit the said amount on 15.01.2009 in his own name. 3/5 Sh. Vikas Meena Vs. M/s. Vian Infrastructure Ltd.
9. To substantiate the payment of Rs. 12,500/ the plaintiff is relied upon receipt dated 28.12.2008 Ex.PW1/3. As mentioned above, it is the own case of the plaintiff that the booking was transferred in his name on 16.01.2009 vide customer ID no. 3301, therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to deposit the said amount in his name on 28.12.2008 against customer ID no. J718.
10. It is pleaded that vide letter dated 23.02.2010 the plaintiff intimated the defendant to cancel the booking. Firstly, no such letter is proved on record. Secondly, the perusal of the cancellation form Ex.PW1/4 reveals that the plaintiff intimated the defendant to cancel his booking on 10.02.2009. As such, there exists contradiction as to when the plaintiff sent the intimation to the defendant to cancel his allotment. Further, it is nowhere the case of the plaintiff that his said request was accepted by the defendant or he sent any notice to the defendant to inform the plaintiff about his request about cancellation of the booking.
11. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is held that the case of the plaintiff is full of contradictions. The statement of PW1 and the documents relied upon by him are contradictory to each other and therefore, do not inspire the confidence of the court. Hence, the plaintiff is held not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the plaint.
RELIEF 4/5 Sh. Vikas Meena Vs. M/s. Vian Infrastructure Ltd.
12. In view of the foregoing discussions, the plaintiff is held not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the plaint. Therefore, the suit is dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
The file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, On 30th of January, 2012.
(PANKAJ GUPTA) ADJ(CENTRAL07)/DELHI 30.01.2012 5/5 Sh. Vikas Meena Vs. M/s. Vian Infrastructure Ltd.