The facts in brief of the complaint are that in pursuance of assured return memorandum of understanding dated 22nd May 2014 the opposite parties received a sum of Rs.14,99,117/- from the complainant against unit number office/219, admeasuring: 250.270 sq. ft. in the complex of opposite party No.1 to pay assured return of Rs.12,804/- per month for a period of 3 years from 27th February 2014 till 27th Jan. 2017. For payment of assured return 36 post dated cheques were issued by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant. Initially some cheques were encashed but cheques from the month of June 2016 till January 2017 were dishonored for insufficiency of funds in their account with the bank resulting in filing of complaints under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which were pending adjudication in the court of Judicial Magistrate Faridabad. In terms of clause 6 memorandum of understanding dated 22.5.2014 the assured return was only to be paid upto 3 years i.e from 27th Feb. 2014 to Feb. 2017 of the said unit and in the event of the complainant willing to quit out of the project/agreement after 3 years form the date of signing of agreement then in that event the opposite parties were to give Rs.19,02,200/- with service tax to the complainant. Hence the complaint. The complainant prayed for directing opposite parties to pay the total amount of Rs.19,92,200/- (Rs.19,02,200/- principal amount stipulated in agreement and Rs.40,000/- as interest and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation) to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant that admitted that the opposite parties received a sum of Rs.14,99,117/- from the complainant against unit number office/219 admeasuring 250,270 sq. ft. in the complex of opposite party No.1 to pay assured return of Rs.12,804/- per month for a period of
3 years from 27.2.2014 till 27.1.2017. Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint.
3. Case called several times since morning. Neither anyone appeared on behalf of opposite parties on the last six dates of hearing nor anyone have turned up today inspite of several calls since morning. Therefore opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.10.2018.
4. The complainant led evidence in support in his version.
5. We have heard Shri S.P.Budiraja, counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. In clause 6 of MOU dated 22.5.2014 the assured return was only to be paid upto three years i.e from 27.2.2014 to February 2017 of the said unit and in the event of the complainant willing to quit out of the project/agreement after three years from the date of signing of agreement then in that event the opposite parties were to give Rs.19,02,200/- with service tax to the complainant.
7. The complainant has opted to quit the project 3 years and wrote letters dated 2.5.2017 and 9.6.2017. But the opposite parties chose to keep mum on the issue, thereby violating the provisions of clause 6 of the MOU. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
8. In view of the above mentioned, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant:
a) Rs.19,02,200/- alongwith service tax being the quoted amount in clause 6 of the MOU.
b) Rs.11,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and agony.
c) Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses . Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room. Announced on:13.11.2018 (Amit Arora) President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad. (Aneeta Pratap Singh) Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad.