ANIL KUMAR GARG Vs. JAGDISH CHOKHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint filed under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that his father had booked a commercial flat, measuring 500 sq. ft. in the building complex known as Chokhani Towers, P-4, Sector 18, NOIDA, Ghaziabad (U. P.) @ Rs.1,015/- per sq. ft. , in the joint name with his wife Smt. Satyawati Gupta. Out of the total sale considertion amounting to Rs.5,07,500/- payable to the O. P. in instalments, the father of the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.4,82,125/- during the period between November, 1989 to July, 1993. However, the father of the complainant expired on 6.11.1994. Thereafter on the basis of a letter of request dated 3.6.1995 the flat booked in the joint name of the late father of the complainant and his mother was exclusively transferred in the name of the mother of the complainant, Smt. Satyawati Gupta, who further vide letter dated 6.9.1995 requested O. P. No.2 to change the ownership of commercial office space No.302 in 'chokhani Tower' situated at P-4, Sector 18, NOIDA, in the exclusive name of her son Shri Anil Kumar Garg, the complainant. Accordingly the name of the complainant was substituted as the owner of the flat in question vide letter dated 23.2.1996. Thereafter the complainant visited the site in question in September, 1996 and to his horror and amazement found that no work was in progress and the structure was incomplete, although O. Ps. had assured the late father of the complainant that the flat would be handed over to them within a period of three years. As such, after inspecting the status of the building the complainant vide letter dated 16.9.1996 informed O. P. No.2 that he was no longer interested in retaining the flat allotted to him and requested the O. P. No.2 to refund to the complainant the price of the flat, at the rate prevailing in the market in that area. The complainant followed up the matter with several reminders. Consequently several memorandum of understandings were also executed between the parties for the return of the deposited amount in instalments. However, the O. Ps. paid up only Rs.4,82,125/- and the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was still due and payable by the O. Ps. to the complainant. The complainant got a legal notice dated 15.3.2000 issued to the O. Ps. which was duly replied to by the O. Ps. vide reply dated 5.4.2000 admitting the various payments made by the complainant's father and acknowledging the fact that they had failed to adhere to the various memorandum of understanding executed between the parties. It was also admitted by the O. Ps. that they had failed to make the payment of the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, the complainant was forced to file the present complaint before this Commission praying for directions to the O. Ps. to refund to the complainant the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest @ 18% p. a. on the total sum of Rs.4,82,125/- from the date of respective payments till the date of repayments made and to be made. The complainant also prayed for award of Rs.3,00,000/- as damages.

(2.) In the reply/written version filed before this Commission, the O. Ps. admitted the fact that the father of the complainant had book a commercial flat with the O. Ps. and also that an amount of Rs.4,82,125/- had been received from the father of the complainant between November, 1989 to July, 1993. It was also admitted that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was still repayable to the complainant. However, the stand of the O. Ps. was that they had always been ready and willing to pay the said amount to the complainant subject to his signing the memorandum of understanding in the office of the O. P. But since the complainant had refused to sign the same on the ground that he would do so only after the encashment of the cheques, the cheques had been taken back by the O. Ps. As such it was stated by the O. Ps. in their reply/written version that the complainant was not entitled to any amount over and above Rs.2,00,000/- in view of the memorandum of understanding executed between both the parties.

(3.) The complainant filed a rejoinder to the reply/written version filed on behalf of the O. Ps. reiterating the contents of the complaint. Both the parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. The complainant filed his own affidavit by way of evidence and on behalf of the O. Ps. the affidavit of Shri Jagdish Chokhani, O. P. No.1 and Chairman of O. P. No.2 was filed.