JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed for seeking quashing of the award dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad in case No. 2906 dated 16.10.2017.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondent-applicant had filed an application under section 22 (C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad stating that he had booked a flat with an area of 1720 sq. feet in the project advertised by the petitioner in the year 2007 for Sector 82 to 85 in Faridabad with the name "The Paranayam". A sum of Rs. 5,41,800/- had been deposited by the respondent vide receipt No. 22 dated 10.12.2007. The basic sale price of the flat was Rs. 36,12,000/-. Till 21.08.2008, a sum of Rs. 16,33,068/- had been deposited by the respondent-applicant. It was alleged that as there was a slow construction at the site, hence, an application dated 25.02.2009 was submitted by the applicant to the petitioner for seeking refund of his money. No builder buyer agreement was executed between the parties. Various reminders were sent and that finally the request was accepted. Four post dated cheques of Rs. 3,23,928/- each totaling to Rs. 12,95,712/- were issued. The respondent alleged that he was forced to sign blank full and final payment receipt prior to issuing the aforesaid cheques and an oral promise was made to him that the balance amount of Rs. 3,37,359/- shall also be paid in due course. However, they backed out of the promise to pay the balance amount, hence, a letter was sent by him on 06.11.2009 and he had also been continuously visiting the office of the petitioner-builder for seeking the balance amount. Finally a legal notice was served by him on 14.01.2016 but to no avail. The application under Section 22 (C) was thus filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad for seeking refund of the balance amount of Rs. 3,37, 359/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and other reliefs.

3. The petitioner entered its appearance before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Faridabad and submitted response challenging the maintainability of the application before the Forum. It was also pointed out that there was no default on the part of the petitioner-developer and that it had already offered possession of the flat to more than 700 families that were residing there. It was further averred that the petitioner himself made a request for refund on the ground that he was retired government servant and had suffered huge losses and he was thus not in a position to pay the remaining installments. The refundable amount was assessed between the parties and full and final payment of Rs. 12,95,712/- was released in favour of the respondent after permissible deductions. There was no occasion or reason for the respondent to be signing any blank papers especially when the respondent-applicant himself was an educated person and a former government employee in the Engineering Wing. No assurance or acknowledgment has been placed on record to show that the balance amount was ever admitted or acknowledged by the petitioner to be paid to the respondent later. He further submits that despite having executed a letter of full and final settlement and being fully satisfied with the receipt of the aforesaid amount, the application in question was filed by him after a gap of nearly 08 years of the receipt of the amount without giving any reasons as to how the claim itself would be within limitation.

4. Efforts for amicable resolution of the dispute were initiated by the Permanent