Mr. Anurag Gupta vs M/S. M-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd on 28 January, 2015

                 (i)       Ex.PW1/1 - Brochure of Camellia Garden.

                 (ii)      Ex.PW1/2 - Letter dated 25.07.2006 of INFOCUS, a

booking agent, wherein the agent had thanked the plaintiff for choosing it for booking plot in forthcoming project of M-Tech Developers, Camellia Garden Anurag Gupta Vs. M/s. M-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd.

proposed at Bhiwadi and sent the payment Receipt alongwith it.

ISSUE NO.1:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount, as prayed for?

14. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff/PW-1 has deposed that he had booked a flat admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. @ Rs.

1375/- per sq. ft. and a plot admeasuring 200 sq. yards @ Rs.4100/- Anurag Gupta Vs. M/s. M-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd.

per sq. yard in the project of defendant i.e. Camellia Garden-2, Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) and paid an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- towards the flat and Rs.2,00,000/- towards plot at the time of booking which was duly acknowledged by the defendant by issuing receipts bearing no. 2240 dated 14.06.2006, no.MJ/CG/33/01/845 dated 04.06.2007 and no.P112 dated 24.07.2006. He has proved the Brochure of the project as Ex.PW1/1 and payment receipt bearing no.P112 as Ex.PW1/6. Even in his cross-examination, the plaintiff/PW-1 has said that he had paid Rs.2 Lacs as booking amount of the plot and Rs.3,30,000/- for flat. But despite his categorical deposition, not even a suggestion was given to him to deny the same. Rather the suggestion given to him was that he had not paid the due installments as per the schedule. It is but obvious from this that the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff had booked a flat and a plot in defendant's project Camellia Gardeen-2, Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) and paid a total amount of Rs. 5,30,000/- to the defendant. Otherwise also, it is pertinent to mention here that in para 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the Plaint, the plaintiff had specifically stated that he had booked a flat admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. and a plot admeasuring 200 sq. yards in Camellia Garden-2, Bhiwadi and paid a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively which was duly acknowledged by the defendant by issuing receipts bearing no.2240, MJ/CG/33/01/845 and P124, but despite the specific averment, the defendant did not deny the same specifically. In reply Anurag Gupta Vs. M/s. M-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Anurag Gupta Vs. M/s. M-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Whether the defendant is liable to pay damages?

17. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. It has been argued by the counsel for plaintiff that as per Clause 3 of Note on page 6 of Ex.PW1/1, the defendant is liable to pay penalty @ Rs.2/- per sq. ft. per month to the plaintiff. As per Sec.74 of Indian Contract Act, compensation for breach of contract can be awarded to make good loss or damage which naturally arose in the usual course of things, or which the parties knew when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach. While granting damages, the Courts have to grant only the reasonable damages suffered by the parties and not as mentioned in the penalty clause in the agreements. But in the present case, there is no evidence that the plaintiff has suffered any special damage due to defendant's breach. Thus he is not entitled to recover amount as per penalty clause. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per the above-said clause, the defendant was required to hand over the possession in 24 months from the date of "launch", but as held earlier, the plaintiff has failed to plead/prove the date of launch. So, in the present suit, he is held not entitled to recover the penalty as stated above. Though the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the special damages but as per the considered opinion of this Court, he is entitled to reasonable damages which naturally arose in the usual course of things. It is argued on behalf of plaintiff that he has suffered damages because had the deal got materialized, the Anurag Gupta Vs. M/s. M-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd.

suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.

20. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.


(Announced in the open
Court on 28.01.2015)                                (Navita Kumari Bagha)
                                                    ADJ-01, South District,
                                                    Saket Courts, New Delhi

Anurag Gupta Vs. M/s. M-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Anurag Gupta Vs. M/s. M-Tech Developers P. Ltd.

Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments