State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manmohan vs M/S M-Tech Developers Ltd. on 16 March, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments: 16.03.2017 Date of Decision: 22.03.2017 Complaint No. 281/2014 In the matter of: Shri Man Mohan' S/o Sh. Amar Singh R/o 30/25, Top Floor Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi- 110 060 .....Complainant Vs. M/s M-Tech Developers Ltd. Hving its registered office at: M-Tech House 144-4/A, 4/B Village Kilokri Hari Nagar, Ashram New Delhi-110 014 Through its Managing Director ....Opposite Party CORAM Hon'ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial) Hon'ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes SHRI O.P.GUPTA The present complaint has been filed for refund of Rs. 28,21,841/- with interest pendent lite and future @15% per annum for the deficiency in service and pay cost of litigation. Briefly stated the facts given in the complaint are that complainant booked villa No. 40, he paid Rs. 3,75,000/- as advance money on 05.01.08 for which receipt No. 1559 was issued. PLC amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six lakh) was discounted. He paid Rs. 7,50,000/- vide cheque dated 14.12.09. Buyer seller agreement was entered into on 27.04.10. OP was to complete construction within 30 months with extended period of six months. Complainant further paid Rs.2,00,000/- by cheque dated 15.05.10, Rs.1,75,000/- by cheque dated 25.05.10 in all he has paid Rs. 15,00,000/- till 2010.
2. OP filed WS raising several preliminary petitions. However, in July 2012 on merits it stated that no amount is claimed in the complaint, complainant is entitled to accept the principal amount.
3. On 16.12.16 the counsel for complainant submitted that in view to admission of OP in para 12 of the WS complainant was ready to settle the matter after receiving principal amount with reasonable interest as may be decided.
4. On 16.02.17 the OP started finding out ways and means to avoid refunding the amount. It was suggested to him that he should refund the amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum which is quite reasonable. He cannot be allowed to retain the amount for 9 years from 2008 to 2017 without paying any interest.
5. The counsel for OP submitted that there is arbitration clause in builder buyer agreement. The same has no effect under consumer protection Act because remedy under consumer protection Act is in addition to and not to in derogation of other remedy. For this reliance can be placed on decision of National Commission in complaint case no. 346/13 titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj vs. Unitech decided on 02.05.16.
OP is directed to return the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the respective date of payment till the date of refund within 45 days.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER(JUDICIAL)