State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harinder Singh vs The Sahara Prime City on 2 November, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.951 of 2015
Date of Institution: 24.08.2015.
Date of Decision : 02.11.2015.
Harinder Singh Dhall, Resident of House No.304C, Model Town
Extension, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
The Sahara Prime City Limited, India Centre, Kaporthala Complex,
Aliganj, Lucknow through its Authorised Signatory
.....Respondent/opposite party
First appeal against order dated
23.07.2015 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri H.S. Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Harinder Singh Dhall, in person .............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent herein (the opposite party in the complaint [in short the 'OP']), assailing order dated 23.07.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana (in short, "the District Forum"), vide which, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.
2. Complainant Harinder Singh Dhall has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the "Act") against the OP on the averments that OP Company issued First Appeal No.951 of 2015 2 advertisement in various news papers and on the assurance of lucrative prices offered by the OPs to the public, the complainant by examining that advertisement booked three bedroom set of area 135.95 square meter, vide application dated 14.02.2006, which was duly acknowledged by the OP. It was further averred that the offer letter was sent by the OP to the complainant calling him to pay the amount of Rs.27,07,000/-, as total amount of the said flat. The complainant paid the entire amount to the OP, but no possession of the flat was delivered to the complainant. The complainant approached OP Company, but no satisfactory reply was given to the complainant by the OP. The OP Company refunded the amount of Rs.35,06,069/- to the complainant by calculating the interest @9% p.a. on the deposit amount of Rs.27,08,175/-. The complainant sent several request letters to the OP to reimburse the difference of interest amount, which comes out to be of Rs.6,47,000/-, because the complainant is entitled to interest @15% p.a. which the OP used to charge from the customers. The complainant has, thus, prayed that OP be directed to pay the difference amount of interest i.e. Rs.6,47,000/- to complainant, besides Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation and Rs.3 lakhs as compensation for mental harassment.
3. Upon notice, OP filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. As per clause 20 of the terms and Conditions of booking, there is arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant cannot First Appeal No.951 of 2015 3 take benefit of his own wrongs. The OP had already refunded the entire deposited amount alongwith interest to the complainant and complainant has filed the complaint with malafide intention only to extract the money from the OP. The complainant is guilty of concealing the material facts from the Consumer Forum, as he has committed perjury. The complaint is alleged to be an abuse of process of law. The complaint is barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. The complaint is alleged to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the OP pleaded that complainant has already been refunded the amount of Rs.35,06,069/-, which has been accepted by the complainant with full satisfaction vide letter dated 22.05.2014. The OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A alongwith documents Annexure-1 to Annexure-10 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP tendered in evidence the affidavit Ex.RW-1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 and R-2 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the appellant (being the complainant in the complaint) at the admission stage of the appeal and have also examined the record of the case. The affidavit of Harinder Singh Dhall Ex.C-A has been scanned by us. First Appeal No.951 of 2015 4 The factual matrix regarding booking the flat by the complainant with OP Company is not disputed. This fact is also an admitted fact that complainant paid the amount of Rs.27,07,000/- as total amount of the said flat, which was to be paid in 60 months installments. This fact is also not disputed that OP refunded the amount of Rs.35,06,069/- to the complainant for non-delivery of possession of the flat to him. The complainant raised grievance with regard to difference of interest amount of Rs.6,47,000/- in his affidavit. The contention of the complainant in the affidavit is that the OP Company charges interest @15% p.a., whereas it awarded the interest @9% p.a. and hence he stated in his affidavit that he is entitled to Rs.6,47,000/- as difference of interest amount. We have examined the documents on the record in this case. The OP relied upon the affidavit of Sanjay Chatirvedi Ex.RW-1/A. Ex.R-1 is the most important letter in this case, which has been issued by the complainant and on the basis of this letter the District Forum dismissed the complainant of the complainant. This letter is dated 22.05.2014. From perusal of this letter, we find that complainant wrote letter to Manager of Sahara India Pariwar, Ludhiana to the effect that he has received the amount of Rs.35,06,069/- and his claim stood satisfied by means of cheque no.056000, dated 16.05.2014 against account no.24291800012. Ex.R-2 is copy of cheque issued to the complainant by the OP. We find that complainant has received the total amount of Rs.35,06,069/- from the OP and his claim stood satisfied, vide letter Ex.R-1 dated First Appeal No.951 of 2015 5 22.05.2014. The complainant has not pleaded any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining this satisfaction letter from him by the OP in the complaint. Even from affidavit Ex.C-A placed on record by the complainant, we do not find that complainant has stated on oath that this letter was wangled by the OP by means of practice of fraud or by any misrepresentation. Consequently, we find that claim of the complainant stood satisfied otherwise there was no question of issuing the satisfaction letter by him. The satisfaction letter Ex.R-1 is dated 22.05.2014 and the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant on 11.12.2014 after a gap of more than six months from the date of execution of this satisfactory letter by him regarding receipt of total amount of Rs.35,06,069/-. The appellant referred to law laid down in "Swarn Talwar & 2 others Vs. Unitech Ltd." in consumer complaint no.347 of 2014, decided on 14.08.2015 by the National Commission. We find that the factual situation of the cited authority is not pari materia with the facts of the case. Herein, we find that once the complainant has received the amount in full satisfaction from OP and he ceased to be the consumer of the OP thereafter, because there is nothing pleaded or proved on record by the complainant that the satisfaction letter was extracted by means of any fraud or by any misrepresentation from him.
6. As a result of our above discussions, we find that the order of the District Forum under challenge in this appeal suffers from no illegality. Consequently, there is no ground to admit this appeal for regular hearing and it is hereby dismissed in limine. First Appeal No.951 of 2015 6
7. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 30.10.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER November 02, 2015.
(MM)