AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vide the present revision petition the Complainant has challenged the order dated 28.07.2020 of the State Commission whereby his appeal against the dismissal order of the District Forum dated 30.09.2019 was dismissed.
In the present Revision Petition during the course of arguments the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant/Petitioner has not pressed the findings of the Fora below regarding payment of Rs. 30,000/- on 26.08.2010 and, therefore, the findings of the Fora below on this count stands confirmed.
The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had booked a flat with the Respondent for a sum of Rs. 9,73,745/-. He had alleged that he made payment on several occasions including the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- made on 30.11.2007 as well for which a receipt No. 0465 was issued to him by the Respondent and, therefore, the findings of Fora below that no such payment against that receipt had been made is contrary to the evidences on record.
It is further argued that the Respondent had taken the plea that since the Complainant had informed them that he had lost the receipt No. 0150 and requested for a duplicate receipt for the payments made on 28.11.2007 and so duplicate receipt bearing No. 0465 had been issued to him for the payment made by the Complainant/Petitioner on 28.11.2007, is false since for the payment made on 28.11.2007, a receipt No. 0150 had already been issued by the Respondent on the same day. It is argued by Ld. Counsel that on the receipt No. 0465, it is no where mentioned that it was a duplicate receipt. It is also argued that the Respondent had failed to produce any application of the Complainant/Petitioner seeking issuance of duplicate receipt. It is further argued that the Petitioner/Complainant has placed on record the original receipts of payments of Rs. 1,50,000/- made on the dates 28.11.2007 and 30.11.2007 and, therefore, the findings of the Fora below are perverse.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the Ld. Counsel and perused the record.
Vide the order dated 30.09.2019 after considering the evidences on record the District Forum has held as under:-
"(7) As far as the question of depositing the amount against the price of the flat in question by the Complainants is concerned, in this regard, where the Complainants have expressed that they had deposited the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- vide Receipt No. 1050 on 28.11.2007 in lieu of the flat in question from the Respondents, Rs. 1,50,000/- vide Receipt No. 0465 dated 30.11.2007, Rs. 93,000/- vide Receipt No. 072 on 07.11.2008 and Rs. 4,50,000/- vide Receipt No. A-314 on 02.02.2011 got deposited the total amount of Rs. 8,43,000/- with the Respondents, on the other hand Respondents have expressed that Complainants instead of having deposited the amount of Rs. 8,43,000/- against the price of the flat in question got deposited the amount of Rs. 6,93,000/- and in regard to the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- got deposited by the Complainants vide Receipt No. 0465 on 30.11.2007, it has been expressed by the Respondents that Complainants have not deposited any amount vide the above receipt, in fact this Receipt No. 0465 dated 30.11.2007 has been issued in regard to misplacement of the Receipt No. 1050 in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- issued on 28.11.2007 on the request of the Complainants in regard to the Receipt dated 28.11.2007 and it has also been expressed about in this Receipt No. 0465 dated 30.11.2007 and this fact has also been confirmed by the Complainants themselves from the Receipt No. 0465 dated 30.11.2007 produced by the Complainants themselves and apart from it, since the alleged amount was not mentioned in the agreement dated 08.02.2011 by the Complainants, Complainants did not raise any objection, from which it gets established that Complainants have not deposited the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 30.11.2007 vide Receipt No. 0465 and this receipt was issued in regard to the Receipt No. 0150 dated 28.11.2007 by the Complainants. Complainants had deposited the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- + Rs. 93,000/- with the Respondents in such manner. Signatures of the Complainants are appearing on the agreement too, from which it becomes clear that Complainants got deposited the amount of Rs. 2,43,000/- in lieu of the flat in question with the Respondents and confirmation of depositing the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- in lieu of the price of the flat in question here is made with the Receipt No. A-314 dated 02.02.2011 issued by the Respondents and the Respondents have not denied the receiving of this amount. From all these things, it gets established that Complainants instead of having got deposited the amount of Rs. 8,43,000/- deposited the amount of Rs. 6,93,000 = Rs. 2,43,000/- + Rs. 4,50,000/- in lieu of the flat in question with the Respondents. According to the agreement dated 08.02.2011, admitted amount of the flat in question was Rs. 9,73,74/- admitted amount of the flat in question was Rs. 9,73,745/- and in lieu of the amount of the flat in question paid by the Complainants, it is established from the above examination by depositing the amount of Rs. 6,93,000/- in lieu of the above flat, thus, as the amount of Rs. 2,80,745/- = Rs. 9,73,745/- minus 6,93,000/-, it is found appropriate that amount of Rs. 2,80,745/- is outstanding against the Respondents. "
Aggrieved by these directions the Complainant filed the Appeal alleging that he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for which receipt No. 0465 dated 30.11.2007 had been issued and has also paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 26.08.2010 and receipt of which had been issued on a 10 rupee stamp paper and hence the findings of the District Forum that no such payment had been made is contrary to the record. The State Commission, however, after re-appreciating and re-assessing the evidences on record, dismissed the Complaint and confirmed the order of the District Forum.
It is a settled preposition of law that a person who appears before a Court or Commission with a plea needs to prove his plea. The initial burden is always upon the person who comes to the Court. Once he is able to discharge his onus the burden to disprove the contentions shifts on the other party. In the present case contention of the Complainant is that he paid Rs. 1,50,000/- once on 28.11.2007 for which receipt No. 0150 was given to him and again paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 30.11.2007 for which receipt No. 0465 had been issued. I have gone through the paragraphs of the complaint wherein this contention has been raised by the Complainant. Relevant paragraphs of the Complaint is reproduced as under:-
"5...........Applicant filled in the application on 28.11.2007 to take one Bedroom Flat in 'My Haveli' residential flat scheme and as per the application, amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited in cash vide Receipt No. 0150/-.
That after getting done the booking, Applicants again deposited the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- vide Receipt No. 0465 on 30.11.2007 and deposited the amount of Rs.93,000/- vide Receipt No. 072 on 07.11.2008 and Rs.4,50,000/- vide Receipt No. A-314 on 02.02.2011, thus, deposited the total amount of Rs.8,43,000/-."
From the reading of these contentions of the Complainant it is clear that he has contended that he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- once on 28.11.2007 and again on 30.11.2007. On perusal of the receipt No. 0150 dated 28.11.2007 and receipt No. 0465 dated 30.11.2007 it is apparent that both these receipts record the factum of payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Respondent on 28.11.2007. The Complainant has contended that he had made the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 30.11.2007, but he has not produced any document to support the contention showing that the payment had been made on 30.11.2007. The receipt No. 0465 might have been issued on 30.11.2007 but it records the fact that it had been issued for the payment made on 28.11.2007. It is also apparent that where there is a documentary evidence the oral testimony qua the facts recorded in that document are not admissible in evidence. Moreover, each receipt shows that the payment had been made in cash. The Complainant was aware that the payment allegedly made on 30.11.2011 had been denied by the respondent, yet he had not produced any documentary evidence showing withdrawal of Rs. 1,50,000/- from his bank account for the payment allegedly made by him on 30.11.2007. No evidence was produced by the Complainant to prove his contentions that he paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondents, specialy when document i.e. the receipt No. 0465, relied upon by the Complainant clearly shows that the receipt had been issued against the payment received on 28.11.2017. It is clear that the Complainant had failed to discharge its burden to prove his contentions. There is concurrent findings of Foras below on these facts.
From the above discussion it is apparent that the findings of the Fora below are neither perverse nor there is any jurisdictional error. Findings are based on the cogent evidences on record. I find no merits in the present Revision Petition. The Revision Petition is dismissed in limine. Copy of the order be sent to the Complainant as well as to his Counsel.