ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. Complainant is the appellant before us. He is aggrieved by the order dated
31.3.1995 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing his
complaint
2. Appellant booked three commercial flats in a building to be built at Nehru
place, New Delhi. He made initially payments of Rs. 75,000/- each at the time of
booking of the flats in all amounting to Rs. 2,25,000/- There separate receipts dated
21.1.1982 for having received the amount were given by the respondent. On 1.9.1990
appellant wrote a letter to the respondent requesting for refund of the amount paid by
him. This letter we reproduce as under
“Dear Sir,
The flat Nos. 510, 511 and 512 in Ansal tower at 38-Nahru Place were
allotted to me and a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- vide Receipt Nos. 20574 dated
22.1.1982, 20573 dated 22.1.1982 and 20575 dated 22.1.1982, (Rs. 7500/-
each) was paid against the said allotment. I regard that due to some
personal reasons I could not make further payments of instalments as
demanded by you. You may recall the discussions of undersigned held in
your office with the concerned official and a decision in the subject matter was kept pending.
As I don’t feel any interest to with the said allotment of Flat
Nos. 510, 511 and 512 it is requested that the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-
lying to the credit of my account with you, be refunded with upto date
interest at the earliest
I hereby declare that I will have no lien/interest in any way in the said
properties.
An early action in the matter will be highly appreciated
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully”
3. Acting on this letter respondent paid Rs. 4,33,122/- in full final
settlement of the amount of the appellant which, ti would appear he accepted
Appellant, therefore, could not be said to have any interest left in the three flats.
4. In the complaint, which was filed much after the receipt of the amount of
Rs. 4,33,122/-, appellant alleged that he had to take the action inasmuch as there was
apprehension in his mind that the plot of land on which building was proposed to be built
by the respondent might be cancelled. This allegation had been stoutly denied by the
respondent which said that by the time the letter dated 1.9.1990 was written, whole of the
structure of the multi-storyed building had already come up. Apart form paying the
initial amount of Rs. 75,000/- for each of the three flats, appellant made no payments. His
prayer in the complaint was that respondent had failed to compensate the appellant either
by giving possession of the flat or if that was not possible the difference of the amount
on which respondent sold the flats to others and the amount it had charged from the
appellant should have been paid to him. This according to the appellant was deficiency
in service on the part of the respondent. He alleged that difference of the sale price
would come to Rs. 800/- sq. ft. and since the area of the three flats was 1800 sq.ft. the
amount due to him would be Rs. 14,40,000/-. His prayer, therefore, was either to deliver
possession of the flats to him or to pay to him the amount of Rs. 14,40,000/-.
5. On the face of it we find that complaint filed by the appellant had
absolutely no merit. He could certainly not have been given the flats nor the deference in
the price agreed to be paid by him and the realised by the respondent on sale to third
parties. In our view, State Commission rightly dismissed the complaint. There could not
by any deficiency in service.
6. Now, before us it is submitted that form the TDS (tax deducted at source)
certificate it appeared that interest for the period 1982 to 1985 was not paid by the
respondent when the amount was admittedly lying with it for this period. There is no
substance in this allegation as well on the facts of the present case, for one thing it was not
the prayer of the appellant in this complaint and secondly having accepted the amount of
Rs. 4,33,122/-, it could not turn back and claim interest for a period of 1982 to 1985. As
a matter of fact, respondent could have even forfeited the earnest money as there was
continued default on the part of the appellant in not paying the instalments.
7. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the
appeal.