Rail Vihar Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. vs Yash Pal Kochar

THE respondent/complainant is a member of the petitioner society since 1989, his membership no. being 276. The complainant made payment of Rs. 60,000/ - in the year 1989, towards booking of a plot measuring 400 sq. yards at the rate of Rs. 300/ - per square yards. The sale consideration was to be paid in six equal instalments. According to the complainant, he paid three instalments in time. By way of an undated letter issued in the year 1994, the petitioner society required the complainant to deposit Rs. 4,05,120/ -, which inter -alia, included interest on the principal sum of Rs. 1,30,400/ - at the rate of 18%. After being aggrieved from the demand of Rs. 4,05,120/ -, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking the following relief: - ''''a. To waive the exorbitant rate of interest which has been levied on the complainant arbitrarily and unjustifiably.

b. To hand over the possession of plot which had been allotted to the complainant without any encumbrances and charge over it.

c. To pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - towards harassment, which the complainant suffered in interacting with the society to get the possession of the plot.

d. To pay Rs. 10,000/ - towards cost of litigation. ''''

THE case of the complainant is that during pendency of the complaint, the society settled the matter with him by agreeing to accept the sum of Rs. 2,88,000/ - comprising Rs. 1,10,400/ - towards principal sum, Rs. 1,38,000/ - as interest at the rate of 12% per annum and Rs. 40,000/ - towards development charges. Admittedly, an amount of Rs. 2,88,000/ - was deposited with the society on the same date by way of a receipt dated 27.10.2008. However, since the possession of the plot was not given to him despite the payment of aforesaid, the complainant approached the District Forum by way of a complaint. The District Forum, vide order dated 24.04.2012, directed the petitioner to handover possession of the plot in question to the complainant without any encumbrances and charges over it. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the society approached the State Commission at Delhi by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 06.05.2014, the Society is before us, by way of this revision petition.

THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no settlement between the parties as was claimed by the complainant and in fact, he played fraud upon the District Forum by falsely showing the compromise. This is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the payment made on 27.10.2008 was a part payment and all the members of the society had paid interest at the rate of 18% per annum only. This is his further contention that even after 27.10.2008, there were further demand made by the society from the members towards electrification etc. The only question which primarily arises for our consideration in this case is as to whether there was any settlement between the parties, whereby the petitioner agreed to accept Rs. 2,88,000/ - towards payment from the complainant, in full and final settlement of all the dues. We have carefully examined the receipt of payment issued by the petitioner to the complainant. By no logic or reasoning evidence, can the aforesaid documents be said to be a document evidencing part payment made by the complainant. The document gives a detail breakup of the amount into three headsi.e. principal amount of Rs. 1,10,400/ -, interest amounting to Rs. 1,38,000/ - at the rate of 12% per annum and Rs. 40,000/ - towards development charges. Had it been a part payment, neither the principal amount would have been reduced to Rs. 1,10,400/ -, as against Rs. 1,30,400/ -, claimed in the earlier letter nor the rate of interest would have been reduced from 18% per annum to 12% per annum. Moreover, in that case, the receipt would have indicated that the aforesaid amount was being made as a part payment. In fact when the part payment is made, there is no question of giving breakup of the said payment under different heads. Ordinarily, no one makes a part payment dividing it under several heads. A part payment ordinarily is of a lump sum amount without giving any breakup as to how it had been divided towards principal, interest or other charges.

ADMITTEDLY , the receipt dated 27.10.2008 is in the hand of an employee of the society namely Mr. Manoj. No affidavit of Mr. Manoj was filed by the petitioner society before the District Forum to show that the aforesaid payment was received by him as a part payment and not as a full and final payment. Moreover, on the earlier demand letter, whereby a sum of Rs. 4,05,120/ - was claimed from the complainant, there is an endorsement of payment having been made on 27.10.2008. This endorsement does not indicate that the aforesaid amount was a part payment. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any demand letter was issued to the complainant after 27.10.2008, claiming the balance amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not show to us any such demand letter. In these circumstances, while exercising our revisional jurisdiction, we see no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the State Commission and the District Forum, holding that there was a settlement between the parties and it was pursuant to the said settlement that the petitioner paid Rs. 2,88,000/ - to the Society.

ANOTHER circumstance, which we would like to note is that the complaint was already pending before the District Forum at the time, payment of Rs. 2,88,000/ - was made. There could be no logic behind the complainant making a part payment of his own during the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum, when he had already assailed the demand of Rs. 4,05,120/ - in the said complaint.

THE learned counsel for the petitioner states that electricity and water charges were demanded from all the members after payment dated 27.10.2008 had been made. Since, no such plea was taken before the District Forum, we leave the issue of aforesaid demand open, without taking a view on it.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.