Rajendra Jaina vs Gaja Nand Derelya

1.THE complaint of the appellant seeking compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent inasmuch as in not executing the sale deed of a plot in respect of which an advance amount of Rs. 15,000 was paid out of the sale consideration of Rs. 1,51,000, was dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.11.1994 with cost of Rs. 2,000 being a false and vexatious complaint.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has directed this appeal. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent approached the appellant at Delhi on 10.4.1989, representing that he was the owner of plot of land measuring approximately 833 sq. yds. (75 ft. x 100 ft) situated at Sidhartha Nagar, behind Derolya Petrol Pump. Nindaun Nidauti Road, Sri Mahavirji, Distt. Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan and that there was Government proposal to construct a Pucca Metalled Road of 24 ft. width adjacent to the said plot which would give a direct access to the said plot. He further mentioned that till such time the metalled road was constructed, the respondent would give 12 ft. wide independent approach to the plot through the petrol pump side. The sale consideration of the plot agreed at was Rs. 1,51,000 and out of the said amount, the appellant had paid Rs. 15,000 as advance through Bank Draft for availing aforesaid service.

ON 12.4.89, the respondent sent a letter that he would come to Delhi and would execute the necessary papers at Delhi but in spite of various letters and requests, he did not execute the requisite documents in favour of the appellant. However, on making inquiries, the appellant came to know that the respondent had mis -represented that he was the owner of the plot in question as there was no clear title in his favour. The appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 50,000 with 24% interest. The respondent denied having received Rs. 15,000 for providing services and giving access to the plot from the petrol pump side till the metalled road was constructed. However, respondent denied having received a sum of Rs. 15,000 against a receipt for the aforesaid services but according to it, it was sale consideration of the plot in question.

BE that as it may the fact remains that respondent entered into an agreement for sale of a plot with the complainant and had received a sum of Rs. 15,000 as earnest money. Even if it is presumed that this was not towards providing the service and access to the plot from the side of the petrol pump, the fact remains that respondent has neither refunded the said amount nor has executed the sale deed. The respondent has nowhere claimed that he was having a clear title of the plot in question nor has he produced any document in support of being the actual owner of the plot. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is guilty of unfair trade practice by way of misrepresentation as well as by not refunding the amount received by him illegally and unauthorisedly. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 15,000 received by him and also to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation for the mental agony and harassment, the appellant suffered which shall include the cost of litigation. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. The above payments shall be paid within one month of the receipt of this order.

A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Appeal allowed.