H.C. SARNA vs ANSAL PROPERTIES And INDUSTRIES LTD.

-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.

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. Three 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-Nehru 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. 7,500 each) was paid against the said allotment. I regret 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 continue 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."

Acting on this letter respondent paid Rs. 4,33,122 in full and final settlement of the amount of the appellant which, it would appear he accepted. Appellant, therefore, could not be said to have any interest left in the three flats.

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-storeyed building had already come up. Apart from 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.

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 difference in the price agreed to be paid by him and that realised by the respondent on sale to third parties. In our view, State Commission rightly dismissed the complaint. There could not be any deficiency in service. Now before us it is submitted that from 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 his 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.

ACCORDINGLY, we uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.