AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties against order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1204 of 2016.
The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant/Respondent was working in Rewa, M.P. during the year 1982-83 and purchased a plot during that time from the Opposite Party/ Petitioner Society by depositing Rs. 300/- on 16.01.1982, Rs. 3,000/- on 12.05.1982, Rs. 6,950/- on 29.08.1983 and Rs. 100/- on 20.03.1986. After the Complainant was transferred from Rewa, he was informed by the Opposite Party that Plot No. 341 in Block B-10, Sector 3, measuring 4000 sq. feet of 80 X 50 at Anantpur was allotted to him. The registry of the plot was sent by post to the Complainant but the physical possession was never handed over to him. On receiving letter from the Complainant seeking information of the date of handing over possession of the Plot, the Opposite Party, in its letter dated 25.02.1986, stated that an amount of Rs. 100/- is outstanding. The Complainant sent the amount on 05.03.1986 through draft and its acknowledgement receipt was sent by Opposite Party on 20.03.1986. However, there was no information as to the possession of the plot to the Complainant. Even after multiple reminders by the Complainant regarding possession of the Plot, there was no reply. Later he was told that there was some dispute regarding plots in Block 10, Sector 3, Anantpur and as soon as the dispute was resolved, he would be informed as to the possession of the plot. In the year 2013, son of the Complainant personally contacted the Respondent and requested to handover the possession of the Plot. The Manager, then informed that number of Plots have been cancelled and a notice has been published in the Newspaper with respect to the same. The Complainant through a letter, dated 16.04.2015 requested for the possession of the plot, and the Opposite Party refused to hand over the same. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint in the District Forum with following prayer: -
“a) A developed plot of 80 X 50 sq. feet, total area 4000 sq. feet may be got handed over to the applicant/ complainant from the respondent.
b.) All the expenses of case may be got paid to the applicant from the respondents and any other relief, as deemed fit by the Hon’ble Court, may also be allowed in favour of the applicant.”
The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties by filing a written statement. The Opposite Parties took preliminary objection that the Complaint was not maintainable as the Complaint was related to the management and business of the Society and only Society Registrar had the jurisdiction to hear matters relating to Society. Also, it was stated that the Complaint is barred by limitation as the Complainant was handed over the Plot on 15.08.1986 subject to the conditions and bye laws of the Society. It was admitted that the Complainant had deposited the specified amount with the society, and the Society gave information on 20.03.1986 regarding handing over of the possession. Other facts stated by the Complainant were denied. It was stated in the bye law No. 43 of the Society that the Member is required to construct on the Plot. In case, the building is not constructed within three years, it would be presumed that the plot is surrendered to the Opposite Party Society. The Complainant did not start any construction on the Plot. In accordance to the Bye Law no. 43, a notice was published in a daily newspaper ‘Navbharat’ on 06.02.2006 in the name of the Complainant. The Opposite Party had, therefore, not committed any deficiency in service.
After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, the District Forum, vide order dated 29.07.2016 allowed the Complaint in following terms: -
“10. In this manner, in view of above discussion, it is not found proved from the documents submitted on behalf of respondents that possession of the Plot No. 341 was handed over to the complainant by the respondents on 15.08.1986. However, from the documents produced on behalf of complainant it is found established that complainant made correspondence with the respondents continuously and made requests that the physical possession of the Plot No. 341 allotted to him, may be handed over to him. Therefore, respondents have committed serious deficiency in service by not handing over the physical possession of the above-said plot to the complainant. Due to not handing over the possession of above-said plot, complainant could not get constructed the house on the above-said plot and suffered mental agony. Therefore, it is found justified that compensation is allowed in favour of complainant and against the respondents. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and it is ordered that-
Information be sent by the respondents to the complainant within one month for handing over the physical possession of Plot No. 341 of 80 x 50 sq. feet. Area 4000 sq. feet at Block B-10, Sector 3, Anantpur at the address of complainant and mention in it that on which date complainant should attend the office of respondents, so that the physical possession of the above-said plot may be handed over to him.
That on appearance of the complainant, the physical possession of above-said plot be handed over to him by the respondent and acknowledgement receipt regarding handing over be obtained from the complainant.
That respondents will pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to the complainant for the deficiency in service committed by them which caused mental agony and also as costs of complaint.”
Aggrieved by order dated 29.07.2016, the Opposite Parties First Appeal No. 1204 of 2016 with the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 12.04.2018, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.04.2018, the Opposite Parties filed the instant Revision Petition before this Commission with following prayer:
“It is therefore prayed that the impugned order dt. 12.04.18 passed in F.A. No. 1204/2016 by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Bhopal (MP) be quashed and other appropriate order or direction may please be issued for decision of the case on merits, or may please be decided by this Hon'ble Court itself on merits calling the records in the circumstances of the case together with other appropriate relief.”
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the State Commission sorted out the dates of order sheet in which counsel for Appellants were not present, instead of considering entire order sheets of every date in sequence i.e. 26.08.17, 03.11.17 etc. while considering the interest of the Appellant to pursue the case leading to patently wrong conclusion and unjust dismissal of case for want of prosecution. There was also no reason mentioned in the impugned order about not deciding the case on merits even in the absence of Appellants. It was stated that the document produced by Complainant / Respondent in the trial court shows that the Complainant was not the member of the society. It was admittedly Mr. Dinesh and the transfer deed dated 16.09.83, was prima facie fabricated. The admission of Appellants at this point was also wrong and due to this perversity the appeal ought to have been allowed on merits. It was also stated that the Complainant is outside the ambit of "Consumer" as he had never paid the consideration for the disputed plot as is clear from the document produced by him. The Appellant Society may not be penalized for negligence or fault of arguing Counsel Mr. S. S. Chaturvedi who failed to appear in the case on 15.03.18 from Rewa to Bhopal because he missed the only direct train.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that he is a Retired Army Officer and a Senior Citizen and this Revision Petition is nothing but abuse of law. The Petitioner had tried to delay the execution of the matter by tiring the Respondent to deny him from the benefit of the order passed by the District Commission. The State Commission was justified in passing the impugned order after providing multiple opportunities to the Petitioner Society to argue the matter on merit. Also, the matter has already been decided on merit by the District Forum, which is a detailed and reasoned judgement and does not require any interference by this Commission.
The State Commission has dismissed the Appeal only on the ground of Non Prosecution and has not gone into the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, order of the State Commission is set aside and the Revision Petition is remanded to the State Commission to decide the case on merits, subject to a payment Rs. 25,000/- to the Respondent as cost. Both Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 20.12.2022.
The Revision Petition and pending applications stand disposed of in above terms.