GAYATRI MITRA vs GOPAL K. SOOD

THE instant appeal is directed against the order dated 10.1.1994 passed by the Ld. C.D.F. in C.D.F. Case No. 4795 of 1991. THE Ld. Forum has dismissed the complaint petition inter alia observing that the same is not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on the ground that there is a dispute for the settlement of account between the parties and the case is of quasi-criminal and civil in nature. It is also the allegation of opposite parties that the appellant has submitted forged document and if that be so it cannot be entertained before the Forum.

THE case of the appellant is that by virtue of the agreement for sale dated 31.12.1989 she made the payments for a flat in question and she also paid Rs. 6,000/- for registration cost and Rs. 4,000/- for C.M.C. tax and handed over non-judicial stamp for Rs. 7,550/- but the Opposite Parties failed and neglected to register the sale deed in respect of the flat and to refund the balance of excess amount allegedly to pay C.M.C. THE appellant further complained that the roof beam of the flat was heavily damaged but the respondents failed to repair the damages in spite of repeated requests. THE appellant/complainant further alleged that the said Rs. 18,000/- was paid to A.B. Banerjee and Rita Biswas for completion of unfinished work and painting of the flat delivered by the respondents/Opposite Parties. Accordingly the complainant/appellant prayed for direction upon the Opposite Parties/respondents to register the sale deed to return the excess amount over expenses including the amounts paid for C.M.C. taxes and to pay damages and compensation etc.

The opposite parties/respondents contested the case by filing written objection denying all material allegations as raised by the complainant/appellant. The opposite parties/ respondents claimed Rs. 47,099/- for extra fittings and additional works to the flat. The respondents/opposite parties further alleged that the complainant/appellant paid Rs. 2,000/- only and denied receipt of any amount from the complainant/appellant. The respondents/ opposite parties alleged that the appellant by interpolation in the letter dated 4.8.1990 shown payment of Rs. 4,000/- by cash which was not originally there and the said document is forged and fraudulent one. DECISION

THE complainant/appellant had submitted Xerox copies of some documents in support of her case and the opposite parties had also submitted certain documents namely letter of possession/confirmation letter for additional fittings and services, cheques, return memo etc. It appears to us that the appellant purchased a flat from the opposite parties as per their agreement dated 31.12.1989 and took the possession of the flat. The appellant claimed that she had paid Rs. 17,550/- towards stamp duty, registration cost and payment of corporation taxes etc., to the respondents but it was proved by the respondents i.e. opposite parties that the appellant paid Rs. 2,000/- only on account of extra fittings against the alleged sum of Rs. 17,750/-. The appellant is claiming the payment of Rs. 2,000/- by Cheque No. 8303 which is a self drawing as per statement of Bank''s Account submitted by appellant herself. Similarly she is claiming the payment of Cheque No. 8306 of Rs. 2,000/- twice. The respondents denied the delivery of non-judicial stamp paper for Rs. 7,750/- and as there is no cogent document of receipt for said non-judicial stamp paper by the respondents, it is very difficult for us to believe that the appellant delivered the same. Further, there is no explanation for the payment of Rs. 2,000/- by the appellant by Cheque No. 8305 which is bounced and the same is withheld by the respondents. The respondents alleged that the payment of Rs. 4,000/- by way of interpolation in the letter dated 4.9.1990 is a forged document and said forgery has been committed by the husband of the appellant in his own handwriting in collusion with her. The appellant could not however substantiate her own statements. Moreover, the respondents produced a letter in which the husband of the appellant admitted for extra fittings and services provided by the respondents in respect of the flat. It also appears from the letter of confirmation that the appellant received possession of flat with full construction and fittings. It also established that the appellant has obtained the benefit of extra fittings and service from the respondents and in view of that the claim made by the respondents for Rs. 47,099/- has not been paid by the appellant although the extra works and fittings to the flat have been admitted by the appellant. The matter involves so many complicated questions of facts which could not be decided in a summary proceeding without elaborate evidences before Civil Court. Moreover, as there is allegation of forged and fraudulent documents, it cannot be decided in a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

THEREFORE, we are of opinion that the remedy for the parties lies in appropriate Civil Court or in Criminal Court for adjudication of the disputes comprising of so many controversial issues including the issue of forged and fraudulent documents by way of interpolation alleged to have been prepared by the appellant. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on contest without any cost. Thus the judgment and order dated 10.1.1994 passed by the Ld. C.D.F. in C.D.F. Case No. 4795 of 1991 is hereby confirmed. Appeal dismissed.