1. By way of this single judgment above mentioned two claims one filed by Mr. Jibran Sabah Khan and other by Mrs. Saima Asad Khan are being decided together because of common facts and allegations against one and the same defendant.
2. Both claims have been brought under section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection 2005 (hereinafter to be called the Act).
3. Admittedly, Mr. Jibran had purchased four plots for Rs 15,00,000/- (fifteen lacs) each and one plot for Rs. 18,00,000/- (eighteen lacs) from defendant; for first four plots he paid Rs. 1004000/- (ten lacs & four thousand) and for fifth plot he gave Rs. 301000/- (three lacs & one thousand) till today to defendant.
4. Same position is of Mrs. Saima who had purchased two plots for Rs. 1800000/- (eighteen lacs) from defendant and till today she had paid Rs. 602000/- (six lacs & two thousand) to defendant.
5. Version of both claimants is that defendant sold plots without obtaining NOC from concerned department; they served legal notices to defendant which where not responded and defendant made misrepresentation. Both have prayed for refund of principal amount with prevailing bank rate interest and to pay ten million rupees each besides punishment to Chief Executive under section 32 of the Act.
6. Defendant submitted, in both claims, separate written statement. Crux of matter as per defendant is that on written requests of both claimants cheques for refund of principal amounts were prepared but in the meanwhile notices were received from this Court. It is important to mention here that defendant although is contesting the claims on various grounds but it was and it is ready to return principal amount and for this purpose photocopies of cheques in the name of both claimants have been placed on file.
7. I had heard arguments of both sides yesterday because learned counsel for claimants had refused to accept the cheques on the ground that interest as per existing bank rate be also given to his clients.
8. Therefore consideration before me is that if claimants are also entitled for any additional amount or not? It is relevant to add here that both claimants have not paid many installments of plots in question and in this regard their plea is that it was due to non-obtaining of NOC from concerned authorities by defendant.
9. Copies of legal notices dated 13.12.2012 show that both claimants had asked for return of principal amount and also interest as per running bank rate from the date of deposit of payments.
What happened, thereafter, is very important. It was 16.01.2013 after more than a month of issuance of notices when Mr. Jibran moved five applications whereas Mrs. Saima had submitted two applications to defendant. Both of them in specific words had mentioned that they were unable to keep continue to pay future installments hence deposited amount (for each plot) without deduction of cancellation charges be refunded. By no means was any kind of interest requested by both of them. Learned counsel for claimants when confronted with these documents, he negated those to have been placed on file with claims. However, when report of Registrar of this Court dated 14.03.2013 (day of institution of both claims) was shown to him where there is categorically mention about these documents, learned counsel had no good answer.
10. To my mind these documents amount to estoppel by words. It also amounts to relinquish the claims of any other amount as requested in legal notices. It means that whatever request was made by both claimants that have been acknowledged by defendant who was and is ready to return said amount. Its bonafide is also clear as defendant has placed photocopies of cheques with written statement.
11. In view of above, I hold that claimants are entitled only for return of principal amount hence this claim is accepted with direction to claimants to receive original cheques in person or through their learned advocate or their special attorney in this regard from defendant after observing legal formalities if required. On approach by claimants or their learned advocate or special attorney, defendant shall deliver cheques within three days. It is worth mentioning that in case of Mr. Jibran four cheques are for Rs. 250000/- (two lacs & fifty thousand) each which should have been for Rs.
251000/- (two lacs & fifty one thousand) each whereas fifth cheque is for Rs. 300,000/- (three lacs) which have to be Rs. 301000/- (three lacs & one thousand). Similarly in case of Mrs. Saima two cheques are for Rs. 300000/- (three lacs) each which should have been for Rs. 301000/- (three lacs & and one thousand) each.
12. It is, therefore, directed that if claimants' object with regard to nominal deduction of amount, defendant shall issue fresh cheques of amounts which have been received from claimants as referred earlier. No order as to costs. Both files shall be consigned to record room after their due completion.