K.L. CHAUMAL vs PUSHPA BUILDERS LTD.

THIS Revision Petition has been filed by petitioner/complainant against the order of the State Commission dismissing his appeal in limine.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the petitioner had booked a flat with the respondent, M/s. Pushpa Builders Ltd. in 1988 and paid Rs. 99,856/- between 26.11.1988 and 21.9.1989 and paid further sums after getting loan from LIC. When the flat was not delivered in time the petitioner approached the District Forum who after hearing both the parties directed the respondent to refund his desposited amount with interest @ 18% as per orders of the National Commission in a similar case involving the same respondent. When the decreed amount was not paid in time, the petitioner moved an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act in execution. We have on record two documents dated 20.6.2000. One is a consent decree which has the signature of the petitioner as well and orders of the District Forum closing the execution file in view of the out of Court compromise arrived at by the parties. The other document dated 20.6.2000 is an application made before the District Forum to start execution proceedings on which there is a reference of some discussions in out of Court settlement/compromise in March, 2000 about which the petitioner was not happy, hence he moved application for executing the orders of the District Forum passed earlier based on the complaint filed by the petitioner. Against the consent order dated 20.6.2000, appeal filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. His grounds of appeal were two-fold, one, that he signed the "consent" under duress and secondly when he approached the District Forum for getting a copy of the order passed by the District Forum, he was refused copy. State Commission after going through these points dismissed the appeal in limine. This Revision Petition has been filed against this order of the State Commission.

It is argued by the petitioner that the consent order does bear his signatures but he had signed it under duress. No material on record supports or substantiates his contention. There is no evidence or proof of his having signed under duress. Had he done so, what prevented him from approaching the State Commission immediately if he had any apprehension of going before the District Forum again. Consent order is dated 20.6.2000 and according to his own admission he approached the District Forum for getting a copy of the same order on 11.7.2000, a full 20 days after the consent order was passed. We are inclined to agree with the State Commission that reneging from the consent order appears to be an after-thought. Under these circumstances, we find ourselves unable to interfere with the order of the State Commission. Revision Petition is dismissed. No order on costs. Revision Petition dismissed.