Srs Real Estate Limited vs Renu W/O Sanjeev Kumar Singla

THE complainant/respondent booked a residential flat with the petitioner in sector -6 of Palwal, making a payment of Rs. 2 lakhs. Since the opposite party/petitioner did not even receive the Letter of Intent from the Government of Haryana, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum, seeking refund of the amount deposited by her with the petitioner/opposite party alongwith interest on that amount at the rate of 24% per annum. She also sought compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/ - and costs of litigation amounting to Rs. 22,000/ -.

THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner Company primarily on the ground that out of the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, deposited with them, the complainant had contributed only a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/ -, the remaining amount being contributed by Mr. Ram Babu, by way of financial assistance. It was also claimed in the reply that at the time of booking, the complainant had executed an undertaking stating therein that if she surrenders the aforesaid booking, only a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/ - would be refunded to her and the balance amount would be refunded to Mr. Ram Babu. It was also claimed that the opposite party had accordingly paid a sum of Rs. 98,000/ - to Mr. Ram Babu.

VIDE its order dated 25.08.2014, the District Forum directed the petitioner Company to refund the entire amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant alongwith interest on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum. The petitioner Company was also directed to pay Rs. 2,200/ - as costs of litigation to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner Company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.10.2014, the petitioner is before this Commission, by way of this revision petition.

THOUGH the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Company had obtained the requisite Letter of Intent from Government of Haryana in the year 2007, it is not in dispute that the petitioner Company had no such Letter of Intent with it at the time the booking was made on 26.11.2006. In the absence of requisite Letter of Intent from the Government of Haryana, the petitioner Company have no right to book a flat at Palwal and accept the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from the complainant. On this ground alone, the petitioner Company is liable to refund the amount which it had taken from the complainant at the time of booking the flat on 26.11.2006.

THE main dispute between the parties is as to whether the petitioner Company is required to refund the entire amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant or it has to refund Rs. 1,02,000/ - to the complainant and balance amount of Rs. 98,000/ - was to be refunded to Mr. Ram Babu. The case in this regard of the petitioner is mainly based on an undertaking which is available on page no. 36 of the paper book. The case of the complainant with respect to the aforesaid document is that it was a blank document when it was signed by her at the time of booking and she had not anticipated at that time that the blank document would be misused by the petitioner Company for the purpose of reducing its liability. The District Forum on perusal of the aforesaid undertaking found that the blanks in the typed/printed documents had been filled with two different inks, meaning thereby that the aforesaid document was filled up in two stages, thereby lending credence to the case of the complainant that it was a blank document when signed by her. More importantly, what I find from a perusal of the aforesaid undertaking that neither it bears any date on it nor does it bear any address of Mr. Ram Babu. In the receipt, issued by the petitioner Company to the complainant, there was no reference to any contribution from Mr. Ram Babu. I fail to appreciate how in the absence of any particulars of Mr. Ram Babu, the petitioner Company could have possibly made payment of Rs. 98,000/ - to him.

DURING the course of hearing, I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to where the receipt executed by Mr. Ram Babu in favour of the petitioner Company is? The learned counsel very fairly concedes that no such receipt was produced before the District Forum. Considering the case of the petitioner Company that it had already made payment of Rs. 98,000/ - to Mr. Ram Babu, the aforesaid receipt ought to have filed before the District Forum.

IN these circumstances when (1) the District Forum found that typed/printed documents had been filled in two different inks, (2) no address of Mr. Ram Babu was available on undertaking, (3) there is no date written on the undertaking and (4) there is no documentary proof of the alleged payment of Rs. 98,000/ - to Mr. Ram Babu, the view taken by the District Forum and the State Commission, with respect to the nature of the aforesaid document and the liability of the petitioner Company cannot be said to be perverse so as to require interference by this Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merits.