AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Cost has not been paid by the petitioner. Respondent is free to file the execution petition for recovery of cost which remained unpaid in the present proceedings. Arguments on the revision petition are heard.
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.09.2011 of the Madhya Pradesh State Commission ( in short, the State Commission) vide which their appeal no. 1133/2008 was dismissed.
The history of the case is that a consumer complaint had been filed by the respondents in the District Forum, which was disposed off by the District Forum vide order dated 27.03.2004, whereby it issued the following directions:
"On the basis of aforesaid scrutiny in the matter, the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the non applicant amounting to Rs.3,32,131/- with interest @ 15% from 08.04.1999 till its realisation as the complainant has taken the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the LIC @ 15% p.a. and at the time of payment of the amount the complainant shall return the document such as sale deed dt. 18.01.1999 and agreement dated 16.12.1998 and the non applicant shall free to sell it to any other and this issue is being adjudicated.
Under the aforesaid conclusion it is ordered that non applicant is liable to pay amount Rs.3,32,151/- to the complainant within two months with interest @ 15% p.a. from 08.04.1999 till its realisation. At the time of payment of the amount, the complainant shall be liable for returning the documents such agreement and sale deed to non applicant who will have to resell the same and the non applicant is also liable to pay 1000/- as cost."
These directions were challenged in appeal No. 1029 of 2004 by the complainant and vide order dated 08.03.2006 the appeal was dismissed. This order was challenged by both the parties before this Commission. Respondents / complainants filed Revision Petition No. 3119 of 2006 and petitioner / opposite party filed Revision Petition No. 1244 of 2006 which were disposed off vide order dated 19.03.2007, whereby the order of the District Forum was modified and following directions were issued:
"It is apparent that the petitioner had entered into a new contract by accepting the partly constructed house for a consideration of Rs.1,74,100/- as against the cost of Rs.4,50,000/- agreed upon by the parties. On 18.1.1999 a sale-deed was executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner thereby transferring the land on lease hold rights. The complainant / petitioner is entitled to only Rs.1,58,051/-[i.e., difference between Rs.3,32,151/- (deposited by the petitioner) - Rs.1,74,100/- (being the cost of the partly constructed house)] and as such on 18.1.99 this amount of Rs.1,58,051/- was required to be refunded. Since the amount was not refunded, a complaint was filed before the District Forum.
The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,32,151/- without deducting cost of partly constructed house. The State Commission had also not noticed this aspect and affirmed the order of the District Forum in appeal.
As regards the rate of interest since the petitioner / complainant has paid interest @15.15%, he would be entitled to interest @15.15% with effect from 18.1.99 on the aforesaid amount, i.e., Rs.1,58,051/-. The respondent is directed to refund Rs.1,58,051/- along with interest @15.15% p.a. from 18.1.99 till date of payment.
The amount which has been deposited by the respondent, if any, before the District Forum would be adjusted by paying this amount to the complainant out of the total amount with accrued interest. In case amount remains unpaid, it shall be paid by the Opposite Party / Petitioner within six weeks. If more than sufficient amount has already been deposited then the amount which is not payable as aforesaid shall be paid to the Opposite Party / Petitioner."
It is argued that this order was not challenged and hence became final. The Decree Holder i.e. the respondents filed Execution Case No. 119 of 2007 before the District Forum. In that execution case, the petitioner moved application being MJC No. 5 of 2007. This MA was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 10.03.2008 wherein it has been held as under:
"The arguments of both the parties have been heard.
That, the applicant prayed for returning of the sale deed and agreement (original) from the non applicants as the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission in the matter filed by the non applicants passed the order dt. 19.03.2007 with direction to pay the rest of the amount with interest by the applicant to the non applicants and he is ready to pay and as per the order of District Consumer Forum in Case No.212/2002 it has been ordered to return the documents and in view of this he is entitled to get the aforesaid documents. While the non applicants submitted that no such order by the Hon'ble National Commission is passed and in view of the order the documents cannot be returned. Even as per the order passed by this forum in Case No.212/2002 dt. 27.03.2004 has been challenged in appeal before the State Consumer Commission in Appeal No.1029/2004 the order dt. 08.03.2006 has been passed, this order has been challenged by both the parties before the National Consumer Commission as Cr.R. No.3119/2006 and 1244/2006 dt. 19.03.2007 has been perused.
Disputedly the non applicant reached into a new agreement in respect of purchase of half constructed house on consideration amount of Rs.1,74,100/- and to this effect a sale deed has been executed between the parties the non applicant / complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.3,32,151/- out of Rs.4,50,000/- as per the earlier agreement. The Hon'ble National Commission has passed the order that the non applicants/complainant is entitled to get sum of Rs.1,58,051/- from the applicant after deduction of amount Rs.1,74,100/- deposited against the amount of Rs.3,32,151/- and because of new agreement dt.18.11.1999 the sale deed has been executed in respect of land in question, therefore, it cannot be returned as it relates to the ownership from the non applicants. Even the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission has also not passed any order to this effect even considering the order of District Consumer Forum in this respect the order in respect of returning of the document cannot be passed, thus, accordingly the application filed by the applicant is dismissed."
This order was challenged by the petitioner in Appeal No. 1133 of 2008, which appeal was dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2011. It is this order which has been impugned before us.
It is argued by the petitioner that the respondent was liable to return the sale deed and agreement as per the directions of District Forum dated 27.03.2004. It is argued by the respondents that they are not liable to return the sale deed and agreement, which even otherwise relates to the property which he now owns and is in possession, since the order dated 27.03.2004 of District Forum does not exist and the findings of the National Commission dated 19.03.2007 have already attained finality.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. From the above findings of the National Commission in RP No.3119 and 1244 of 2006 it is apparent that while disposing off the revision petitions, this Commission had not issued any direction for return of the documents to the petitioner. Therefore, The District Forum has rightly dismissed the MA of the petitioner for return of the documents and the State commission rightly upheld the said order.
Counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Revision Petition has no merit and same is dismissed.