AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
The complainant/petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint before the concerned District Forum against the respondents alleging therein that respondents no.1 & 2 were the owners of land in Asadwan, Nanded and had floated a scheme for sale of residential plots carved out of the land which they owned in Nanded. This was also the case of the petitioner/complainant that the scheme floated by respondents no.1 & 2 was known as 'Jaynagar Extension Scheme' and he became a member of that scheme paying a sum of Rs.31/-. Later on, he paid Rs.9,000/- towards cost of a plot in 30 installments besides payment of Rs.1,000/- towards registration. Since no plot was given to the petitioner/complainant, despite he having allegedly paid the aforesaid amount to respondents no.1 & 2, he approached the concerned District Forum seeking possession of a plot admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. with compensation etc.
The complaint was resisted by the respondents. In their written version, respondents no.1 & 2 denied having floated any scheme and having sold any plot to the complainant. They also denied having received any payment from him.
In their written version, respondent no.3 inter-alia stated that he was an employee of late Mr. Sanjay Joshi and that he had collected the payment from the complainant on behalf of Sanjay Joshi and had deposited the said payment with him.
The District Forum, vide its order dated 15.10.2010, directed as under:
1) Application of the applicant is granted.
2) A sale deed be executed by the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 of a plot 30 X 40 = 1200 sq. ft. in Jaynagar or Jaynagar Extension, Asadwan, Nanded, Gut No. 238 , having No.28 or in exchange, per lay out of the same area, any other plot.
3) Rs. 5000/- granted towards mental torture.
4) Cost of the case Rs. 2000/- sanctioned.
5) Parties be informed of the order.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, respondents no.1 & 2 approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 21.01.2015, the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the Consumer Complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission.
As noted earlier, the case of the complainant/petitioner is that it were respondents no.1 & 2 who had floated the scheme in which plot was to be made available to him and the entire payment was made by him to respondents no.1 & 2 though he also alleged that the amount of Rs.1,000/- towards registration charges was paid to respondent no.3. This is not the case of the complainant that the payment from him was received by respondent no.3 in his individual capacity or on behalf of late Mr. Sanjay Joshi.
The complainant/petitioner has relied upon a pass book to prove that the scheme in which payment was made by him, was floated by respondents no.1 & 2. However, there is no evidence of the pass book being signed by respondents no.1 & 2. There is no specific averment in the Consumer Complaint that the Pass book was signed by respondents no.1 & 2. No handwriting expert was examined before the District Forum to prove that the passbook was signed by respondents no.1 & 2. Since respondents no.1 & 2 had denied having entered into any transaction with the complainant, it was necessary for him to prove the alleged signature of respondents no.1 & 2 on the passbook. That however, was not done.
The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the address given on the passbook is the residential address of respondent no.1. The address given on the passbook is Plot No.58, Ramanand Nagar, Nanded. However, the address of respondent no.1 given to the District Forum as well as his address given in the Revision Petition is Ramanand Nagar, Nanded without giving any plot number. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the passbook bears the residential address of respondent no.1 or 2. The passbook therefore, does not prove any transaction between the complainant and respondents no.1 & 2.
The learned counsel for the complainant submits that as many as 30 receipts were issued by respondent no.3 to the complainant which are still in possession of the complainant. He submits that the photocopies of the receipts were filed before the District Forum but have not been filed in the Revision Petition. He however, admits that in none of the receipts, it was recorded that the payment was being received by respondent no.3 on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the payment by respondent no.3 was received from him on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2.
However, respondent no.3 had admittedly received the money from the complainant. He failed to prove that the payment was received by him on behalf of late Sanjay Joshi and had passed on that money to him. He should therefore refund that amount with interest.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I have no hesitation in holding that the complainant has failed to prove any transaction with respondents no.1 & 2. However, he has been able to prove the payment of Rs.9,000/- + Rs.1,000/- made by him to respondent no.3. He is therefore, entitled to refund of the aforesaid amount to respondent no.3 with appropriate interest.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Revision Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) Respondent no. 3 shall refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner/complainant alongwith interest on that amount @ 9% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund.
(ii) The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months.
(iii) No order as to costs.
(iv) The complaint against respondents no.1 & 2 remains dismissed.