CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23 Institutional Area
(Behind Qutab Hotel)
NEW DELHI – 110016
Case No. 147/09
Satish Sharma
C-2/2499, Vasant Kunj
New Delhi-110070. .…Complainant
Vs.
1. The Principal Officer
M/s M-Tech Developers Ltd.
M-Tech House
144-4/A, 4/B, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi-110014.
2. The Principal Officer
M/s Vishal Associates
H.L. House, UGF, M.G. Road
Sikanderpur
Adjacent Pal Tower, Gurgaon. …Respondents
Date of Order : 31-12-2009
ORDER
Complainants case, in nutshell, is that he booked one flat measuring 1250 Sq. Ft. in the respondent’s project named M-Tech Glare Dharuhera, Haryana. On 29.1.2007 he paid Rs.1,90,000/- to the respondent No.-1 vide cheque No.146289 dated 14.1.2006 drawn on ICICI Bank. On 14.11.2007 he paid Rs.1,94,375/- to the respondent No.-1 vide cheque No.003533 dated 27.10.2007 drawn on Vijaya Bank and on 18.6.2008 he paid Rs.77,750/- to the respondent No.1 vide cheque No.003534 dated 28.4.2008 drawn on Vijaya Bank. As per the scheme announced in 2006, respondent had promised to deliver possession within approximately two years; that as respondent even failed to start the project till January, 2009 therefore vide application dated 17.1.2009 he (complainant) surrendered the original documents and requested the respondent No.-1 for refund of the principal amount along with interest; that as in spite of the reminders dated 19.1.2009 and 28.1.2009 respondent failed to refund the amount hence the present complaint praying therein that respondent should be directed to refund principal amount along with the interest @24% per annum; that respondent should also be directed to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards litigation charges.
After the registration of the complaint notice of the same was sent to the respondent. During the course of the proceedings both the parties arrived at a compromise and executing memorandum of understanding dated 1.7.2009. As per the aforesaid memorandum of understanding respondent agreed to refund the sum of Rs.4,62,125/- as per the following schedule:-
a. Demand Draft of Rs. One Lakh on 3.7.2009.
b. Demand Draft of Rs. One Lakh on 4.8.2009.
c. Demand Draft of Rs. One Lakh on 8.9.2009.
d. Demand Draft of Rs. One Lakh on 5.10.2009 and
e. Demand Draft of Rs. 62,125/-on 5.11.2009.
On the basis of the above memorandum of understanding both the parties also made a statement in the Forum on 3.7.2009. Although respondent made the entire payment to the complainant but it could not adhere to the exact schedule of payment as mentioned in the memorandum of understanding. The aforesaid payment of Rs.4,62,125/-, in fact, was made by the respondent as under.
Rs. One Lakh vide demand draft dated 1.7.2000 Rs. One Lakh vide demand draft dated 10.8.2009. Rs.One Lakh vide demand draft dated 11.9.2009, Rs. One Lakh vide demand draft dated 13.10.2009 and Rs.62.125/- vide demand draft dated 4.11.2009.
From the order sheet on record it has also been observed that there was delay on the part of the respondent in handing over the drafts. Complainant counsel therefore submitted that although respondent has made the payment of the principal amount as per the memorandum of understanding but as it failed to adhere the exact schedule of payment as mentioned in the memorandum of understanding therefore the matter should be decided afresh on merits/punitive damages should be imposed upon the respondent and suitable compensation be also given to the complainant. After hearing the arguments of both the parties our decisions is as under.
We have carefully gone through the memorandum of understanding. It does not provide any penal clause in case respondent failed to adhere the exact schedule of payment. Hence, taking into consideration that respondent has already made the entire payment as mentioned in the memorandum of understanding, taking into consideration that delay in preparation of the drafts in respect of second, third and fourth instalments of Rs. One lakh each was only of few days i.e. 6 days, three days and 8 days respectively, taking into consideration that the aforesaid memorandum of understanding does not provide any penal clause for the delay in making the payment, taking into consideration that the aforesaid memorandum of understanding was executed without any kind of pressure, coersion or undue influence, we are of the considered opinion that it is a case where the compliant is required to be disposed off as fully satisfied. We order accordingly. Further in the facts and circumstances of the case there are no orders to the costs.
Copy of this order be sent to both the parties and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S. NOOR)
MEMBER
(S.K.TANDON) PRESIDENT