MUKHTIAR SINGH vs S.R. Vohra

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 06.02.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. A/08/904, "Mukhtiar Singh versus S.R. Vohra ", vide which while dismissing appeal, order dated 23.05.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, allowing the consumer complaint in question was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant Mukhtiar Singh and OP S.R. Vohra both were working in Larsen and Toubro Ltd., Mumbai, when the OP S.R. Vohra collected money from some persons under the pretext of formation of a cooperative housing society in Borivali (West). He proposed a housing society in Goregaon (West) in Feb. 1996 and collected Rs.30,000/- from each member but the project did not materialise, because the selected site was found to be under litigation. An alternative site was proposed in Goregaon (East) in July 1996, but the same was also found under litigation and the deposited amount was returned to the members without interest. In 1997, the OP proposed formation of Luvkush Cooperative Housing Society, B-20, Vijay Nagar C.H.S. Eksar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400092. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,18,240/- in four instalments in the year 1997 to the OP S.R. Vohra. However, there was no progress in the matter and the complainant demanded his money back from the OP. The OP gave him a cheque for Rs.2,93,240/- but requested the complainant not to deposit the cheque in bank. Another cheque was given for the same amount a few days later, but the said cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient balance. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant had taken the money from his Provident Fund Account and also raised loan for making payment to the OP. The complainant made the following prayer in his complaint:- "Mr. S.R. Vohra is liable to compensate as follows:- a) The amount of Rs.2,63,275/- which is detailed in Page-4 as interest @18% per year on balance payment. b) The amount of Rs.45,000/- against losses on delay in acquiring house, buy a car (perks @ 4860 p.m. as car allowance), loss of tax rebate on PF interest etc.) c) The amount of Rs.40,000/- for mental harassment and strain. d) The amount of Rs.10,000/- spent on litigation expenses and time lost in litigation. The total amount (as above) of RS.3,58,275/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five only) thus Mr. S.R. Vohra is liable to pay."

The District Forum vide 23/05/2008 ordered that OP should pay an amount of Rs.3,18,240/- to the complainant alongwith an interest @9% p.a. from 01.07.97 till 30.06.2000 and after that period with interest @6% p.a. and also pay Rs.5,000/- for mental depression and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. An appeal against this order before the State Commission was dismissed on 06.02.2013. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

AT the time of hearing before us, the complainant/petitioner appeared in person and handed over his written submissions along with copies of some documents. He stated that an alternative house of same size and same location should be given to him on payment of balance and he should also be compensated for the cost appreciation in the value of the house from 1997. The opponent should also be asked to refund Rs.9.9 lakh with interest @18% or 24% and should be given Rs.10 lakh for mental harassment and Rs.2,50,000/- towards cost of litigation. It has been stated in the written submissions that the OP had defaulted in providing him house at Kandivali at the cost of Rs.13,18,044/- by Diwali 1998. Moreover, he was supposed to get a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- from the OP as interest balance since the year 2000. When the attention of the petitioner was drawn to the contents of the complaint filed by him saying that such demands were not made in the complaint, he still stated that he is entitled to get an alternate house and adequate compensation.

AN examination of the material on record indicates that in the consumer complaint in question, the petitioner in his complaint had demanded a sum of Rs.3,58,275/- from the OP S.R. Vohra. The District Forum after taking into account the material on record, ordered the OP to pay a sum of Rs.3,18,240/- alongwith interest and also awarded Rs.5,000/- for mental depression and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The State Commission also held that the petitioner was not entitled to receive anything more than that allowed by the District Forum. It is very clear from these facts on record that the petitioner is now saying that he should be given a house in the same locality and should be given heavy amounts for mental harassment etc. but his stand is not justified on any ground, because whatever demand was made by him in the complaint has already been considered and relief allowed by the District Forum and the State Commission. We do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum. The present petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum are upheld with no order as to costs.