AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Revision Petition no.1131 of 2016 has been filed by the OP/Developer, against the impugned order dated 6.2.2016, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred to "State Commission") in First Appeal No.632/2015, Astha Developers and Colonizers and others Vs. Damodar Sinha, vide which, while partly accepting the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg, allowing consumer complaint no.CC/15/214 on 16.10.2015 was modified. R.P. No.1132 of 2016 is concerned with a similar matter with a different complainant, who has filed the petition against order of the State Commission dated 6.2.2016 in First Appeal No.633 of 2015, vide which, the order passed by the District Forum in consumer compliant no.CC/16/215 on 16.10.2015 was modified. The District Forum vide their order had directed the OPs/petitioners jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainants in each case alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 20.1.2012, a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. The State Commission, while keeping the other part of the order intact, reduced the amount of compensation for mental agony from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.1 lakh.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants in the two consumer complaints referred above, stated that they paid an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the OP/petitioner and entered into an agreement with them, according to which, a constructed house was to be handed over to the complainants within a stipulated period of 18 months. However, the OPs failed to start construction of the house, even after a period of 30 months, following which, the complainant asked them to refund the amount deposited with them. It is stated that the OPs gave cheques no.642436 and 642437 dated 10.12.2014, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhilai, valued at Rs.5 lakhs each to the complainants. However, when the said cheques were presented by the complainants to their banks, the same were dishonoured by them, as there was no sufficient money in the account of the OPs. The complainants sent legal notices to the OPs, which were received by them on different dates, but still, their money was not refunded. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, consumer complaints were filed before the District Forum, seeking direction to the OPs to get the house constructed as per the agreement, at the rate fixed at that time, or in the alternative, to refund a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in each case, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of payment and further compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for mental agony etc.
The District Forum vide order passed on 16.10.2015, allowed the said complaints and directed the OPs, jointly and severally, to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainants in each case, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 20.1.2012, and Rs.3 lakhs as compensation against mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
Being aggrieved against the said order, the OPs/petitioners challenged the same before the State Commission by way of the appeals as referred above. As stated already, the compensation in each case was reduced from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.1 lakh vide impugned order dated 6.2.2016, passed by the State Commission. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OPs/petitioners are before this Commission by way of the present revision petitions.
In the grounds of the revision petitions in R.P. No.1131/2016, it has been stated, inter alia, as follows: "3. That the complainant/respondent had deposited booking amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner. That the complainant was in urgent need of the house and therefore, the complainant demanded back a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner/respondent. The petitioner was ready to get the land registered in the name of the complainant/respondent measuring 1800 sqft, but the complainant had refused to accept the said offer. The market value of the said land in the months of Dec. 2014 was approx. Rs.12,00,000/-. Therefore the petitioner immediately issued a cheque for the said amount pertaining to Oriental Bank of Commerce dt. 10.12.14 bearing instrument no.642436.
That when the complainant deposited the said cheque for payment in his bank account, the cheque bounced with the remarks "insufficient funds". The complainant thereafter issued notice to the petitioner for repayment of the said amount and thereafter filed a criminal case U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act at the Civil Court at Durg, which is still pending before JMFC Durg."
In R.P. No.1132 of 2016, similar version has been given by the petitioner. It is clear, therefore, that the factum of deposit of Rs.5 lakhs with the petitioner, the subsequent refund of the said amount by means of cheques dated 10.12.2014 and the said cheques having bounced, because of insufficient funds, has been admitted by the petitioners. It is however, stated in the grounds of revision petition that since the matter was pending before Criminal Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the consumer fora were not empowered to entertain the consumer complaints, in question.
At the time of hearing before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the matter with regard to the bouncing of cheques for Rs.5 lakhs in each case, was pending in the judicial court and hence, the present proceedings before the consumer fora could not be undertaken. He further stated that the execution proceedings had been filed by the complainants against them in the District Forum, in which the said forum had directed that amount, in question, should be deposited with the said forum, within a week.
I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.
The main point for consideration in the present cases is whether the consumer fora were competent to entertain complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, keeping in view the fact that proceedings were pending before the judicial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is clearly admitted by the OPs/petitioners that they issued cheques for the refund of Rs.5 lakhs each to the complainants, but the said cheques bounced due to insufficient funds. The complainants, therefore, instituted proceedings in the judicial court under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In so far as these proceedings are concerned, a court having criminal jurisdiction has to adjudicate, whether any punishment was required to be given to the OPs/petitioners, because the cheques issued by them had bounced. In so far as the refund of the amount in question is concerned, the complainants are well within their rights to get their money back by instituting proceedings before an appropriate forum. Since the OPs/petitioners issued cheques of Rs.5 lakhs each to the complainants, it implies that they admitted their liability
towards the complainants and hence, decided to return the amount deposited with them. In so far as the payment of interest on the said amount and the quantum of compensation awarded by the consumer fora is concerned, the petitioners have nowhere challenged the same in the body of their revision petitions or during the course of arguments before me. The only contention raised by the petitioners is that consumer fora could not have entertained the consumer complaint, in question. I however, do not find any reason to agree with the said contention of the petitioners that the consumer fora were not competent to entertain the complaints in question, because the amount refunded by the Ops/petitioners was not received by the complainants. There is a clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs/petitioners, because the cheques issued by them bounced, when presented to the banks. They are, therefore, liable to return that money to the complainants alongwith compensation as allowed in the impugned order of the State Commission. I, therefore, do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission and the same are upheld. These revision petitions are ordered to be dismissed, being without any force.
There shall be no order as to costs.