MOTI LAL JAIN vs MARUDHAR SERVICE LIMITED

THIS order will dispose of complaints Nos. 220 to 227 and 230 of 1992. The facts in the judgment are being given from complaint No. C -223/92. Respondent No. 1 floated a scheme known as Marudhar Farms. The Swati Investment Plan and advertised it in daily newspapers. It was stated that Marudhar Farms were located near Sohna, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana, distance of 42 kms. from Delhi on National Highway No. 8.

THEY issued a brochure entitled Money Grows on Trees, which gave 8 options to the investors on depositing a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - as detailed below : - Ready Reckoner of Returns (On Rs. 30,000/ -) Simple (6 Years) (Compound) (12 Years) (A) Rs. 90.000/ - (E) 2,70,000/ - The Land and Trees are sold lo the Co. (B) Rs. 50,000/ - (F) Rs. 1,85,000/ - The Trees are sold to the Plus Land Plus Land company and the Land is retained by the allottees. (C) Rs. 40,000/ - (G) Rs. 85,000/ - The Land is sold to the Company, Plus 500 Trees Plus 1000 Trees (500 after and the Trees are retained every 6 years) by the allottees. (D) Land 500 Trees (H) Land+1000 Trees 500 after Land and Trees are every six years). retained by allottees.

It is stated that the plan provided that the person applying for one unit under the scheme, would get 4,840 sq. yards of land. The development work of the farms would he the responsibility of Murudhar Farms and that would be done before handing over the possession of the farms to the purchaser. They would also develop approach roads, and provides water and electricity connections at a cost of Rs. 5,000/ - payable by the investor. The return of the money would be from eucalyptus plantation and the trees would be got insured with the United India Insurance Company.

IT is alleged that the complainant, in view of the assurances in the brochure and advertisements, deposited a sum of Rs. 11,000/ - vide cheque No. 422390 dated 25.7.86 and opted for option D i.e the land plus 500 trees after six years. Thereafter they deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - on 13.9.86, Rs. 14,000/ - on 16.12.86. This amount included the sum of Rs. 1,000/ - towards process charges and Rs. 4,000/ - towards registration and other charges, such as income -tax clearance certificate, mutation charges etc.

IT is pleaded that on 19.8.87 the respondents informed the complainant that there was a problem about the land which had been allotted and therefore, the allotment had been changed to another place known as Atwa, about 72 kms. away from Delhi near Palwal. It is alleged that the complainants were not interested in the new site at Atwa and they requested the respondent to refund their money. However, by mis -representing the facts the respondent obtained their consent for Atwa land. Later they were informed that the possession would be handed over with trees during the second quarter of 1990. In April 1991, it is alleged, the complainants alongwith some other investors went to see the spot and found that the land was of poor quality and there were a few saplings which were less than one feet high. It was contrary to the representations made by the complainant. Thus the respondents failed to hand over possession of the plots to them alongwith 500 trees and committed breach of the agreement. Consequently, they have prayed that the respondents be directed to refund the amount with interest and Rs. 2 lacs as compensation.

THE respondents have contested the case. They inter -alia pleaded that the change in the site of the land was made with the consent of the complainants and that even a sale -deed was got executed from the land owners in their favour. They have further pleaded that it was made clear to the complainants that the land which was to be sold was a barren land, but the same would be developed.

THE main question that arises for determination is, whether the complainants can seek relief before this Commission on the ground of breach of agreement after having agreed for transfer of the scheme from Sohna to Atwa on the ground, that fraud had been played upon them. We have given our due consideration to the matter and are of the opinion that after having once acceded to the request of the respondent for change of the site the complainants cannot challenge the transaction in the proceedings before us on the ground of fraud. In the letter dated 30.3.89 they themselves asked the respondents to allot the land which was proposed by the respondents. It was written by them after they had visited the spot and seen the plot of land. Subsequently even a sale -deed dated 17.5.89 had been executed in their favour. In case they want to challenge the transaction they should file a Civil Suit, wherein the parties will have enough opportunity to lead full evidence, prove documents, cross -examine the witnesses, file interrogatories, get appointed Commissions etc. In summary proceedings it is not possible for this Commission to go into the question of fraud. The facts of the other cases are similar to those of the present case and no new argument has been advanced therein. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the cases we dismiss all the complain ants subject to the observations that the complainants may, if so advised, file Civil Suits. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.