MAHAMAYA GENERAL FINANCE CO P LTD vs S K JAIN

-THESE two appeals arise from a common order passed by the State Commission allowing the complaint filed by Mr. S. K. Jain and Another (appellants in First Appeal No. 262 of 2006) against Mahamaya General Finance Company and Another (appellants in First Appeal No. 244 of 2006 ).

VERY briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had deposited Rs. 1,000 with the sole selling agent of Mahamaya General Finance Company, booking a plot of land measuring 355. 56 sq. yrds. It was the case of the complainant that upon deposit of another Rs. 20,000, the possession letter was issued, signed by one of the Directors of Mahamaya General Finance Company, namely, Shri Balwant Singh. It was his case that he had also purchased the stamp paper worth Rs. 26,000 for registering the sale-deed and deposited with the Mahamaya General Finance Company but since neither possession was given nor the document was registered, thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Mahamaya General Finance Company, Shri S. K. Jain and another filed a complaint before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record allowed the complaint and directed the Mahamaya General Finance Company, opposite party before the State Commission and appellants in F. A. No. 244 of 2006 to pay in lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 to the complainant as no plot was available for Rs. 2,50,000 to the complainant as no plot was available for allotment. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order both the parties have filed two separate appeals before us. First Appeal No. 244 of 2006

It is the case of the appellant that the complainant after depositing of Rs. 1,000 did not comply with the terms given on the back side of the receipt. It was also their case that after depositing Rs. 1,000 by the complainant, no other amount has been deposited. The alleged document showing handing over the physical possession of Plot No. 51, allegedly signed by Director, Shri Balwant Singh, is a fabricated document.

THE matter was contested by the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant and after hearing the parties, we are of the view that there is no dispute that Rs. 1,000 was paid by the complainant and after that no effort has been made by the appellant to do anything about the original allotted plot which as per allegation of the complainant was not being given to him as the Chairman of the respondent company wanted for himself. There is no dispute that Rs. 1,000 was deposited. We are not satisfied by the appellant''s statement that the document dated 4th January, 1982, is a fabricated document for the simple reason that when we ourselves compared the signatures of Director Balwant Singh on the letter/certificate dated 4. 1. 1982, with the signatures on the affidavit filed by the said Mr. Balwant Singh, before the State Commission, we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that both the signatures are by the same person. In these circumstances, if the possession was certified to be given then the transaction of Rs. 20,000 having been paid by the complainant has to be accepted. There is also no dispute that the complainant has purchased stamp papers worth Rs. 26,000 which was deposited with the appellant company which were misplaced by them and returned later on. As per the statement of the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant they were on the file of State Commission. In the above circumstances and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=iii (2004) SLT 161, decided on 17. 3. 2004, the complainant shall be entitled to Rs. 47,000 (Rs. 21,000 paid by the complainant + Rs. 26,000 value of stamp paper purchased way back in 1993) along with interest @ 18% p. a. from 1. 1. 1994 till the date of payment. First Appeal No. 262 of 2006

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and seeing the material on record, we find that appellant/complainant in this case is not without blemish. There is nothing on record to show that he complied with any of the conditions appearing as part of the receipt of Rs. 1,000. He is not entitled to any plot. He, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case is only entitled to return of money given to the respondent as also the money spent on the stamp papers, which could not be used. Since he was never allotted any plot, there is no question of any cost escalation being given to him. In view of the above discussion in F. A. No. 244 of 2006, we see no ground to enhance the compensation and see no merit in this appeal, hence dismissed. Mahamaya General Finance Company is directed to make the above payment to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which the complainant shall be free to proceed against the opposite party, under Sections 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.