Ravindra vs Gurukrupa Housing Agency

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member

These three Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 22 (a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the common order dated 04.01.2018 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeals (FAs) No. 703/2009, 704/2009 and 705/2009 in which orders dated 07.08.2009 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaints (CCs) No. 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008 was challenged, inter alia praying to allow the Petitions by modifying impugned order passed by State Commission and to direct Respondent for payment of price of suit plot along with interest thereon as per today’s rate of ready reckoner of Government.

As all the Petitions have been filed against the same/similar  order of the State Commission, parties (Respondent) involved are the same, and issues for consideration/determination are related, these are being taken up together under this order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition (RP) No. 1209 of 2018 is treated as the lead case and facts enumerated herein under are taken from RP 1209 of 2018.

While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant in the said FA 703/2009 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was complainant and Respondent was OP before the District Forumin the CC No. 715/2008.

Notice was issued to the Respondent on 14.12.2018.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 17.07.2023 (Petitioners) and 18.07.2023 (Respondent) respectively.

Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that the Petitioner/Complainant entered into an agreement with the Respondent/OP, Gurukrupa Housing Agency, a business engaged in buying and selling plots, particularly Plot No. 84 & 85 in Mouza-Dongargaon, Nagpur. The complainant intended to purchase these plots for residential purposes. The agreement was executed on 16.03.2006, where the complaiant paid Rs.10,000/- as earnest money, and the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of executing the Sale Deed, which was scheduled to occur by 15.07.2008. During this period, the OP was responsible for obtaining all necessary documents for the plots, including N.A. orders and town planning sanctions. From the date of the agreement in March 2006, the complainant repeatedly requested the OP for the execution of the Sale Deed and attempted to pay the remaining amount. However, OP later refused to accept the payment and demanded Rs.400/- per sq.ft. for the plots, which led the complainant to believe that the OP intended to sell the plots to someone else at a higher price. In response to this situation, the complainant issued a legal notice on 25.06.2008, which the OP received on 02.07.2008, but did not reply to. The complainant then filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum Nagpur, seeking the execution of the Sale Deed for the plots or a refund of the amount paid, along with interest and compensation. The OP, in their defense, claimed that the complainant had defaulted on equal monthly instalment payments and that they had sold the plots to another party due to this default. They also disputed the issuance of a passbook to the complainant for payment entries. District Forum issued an order directing the execution of the Sale Deed or refund of the plot's price as per the current government Ready Reckoner rate, along with compensation. This order was modified by the State Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur, which reduced the compensation awarded to the complainant. The complainant contends that the modified order does not consider his limited financial resources and the fact that he cannot purchase another plot at today's market rate. The OP, meanwhile, has indicated their intention to refund the initial amount of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest.

Vide Order dated 07.08.2009, in the CC No. 715/2008 of the District Forum has-

(i) Partly allowed the complaint and directed OP to receive remaining amount from complainant and to execute the registered sale deed in favour of complainant. If the plot is not available then execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of complainant in the same layout and same admeasuring;

(ii) Or to refund the amount of plot as per today’s rate of ready reckoner and subtract the amount which is already paid by the complainant;

(iii) Directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses of litigation.

Aggrieved by the said Order dated 07.08.2009 of District Commission, Respondent/OP appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 04.01.2018 in FA No.703 of 2009 has partly allowed the appeal and modified the order.

Petitioner/Complainant has challenged the said Order dated 04.01.2018 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i) That the State Commission failed to properly appreciate the documents on record and relevant legal provisions. State Commission should have considered that the OP failed to execute the Sale Deed within the specified time and refused to accept the consideration amount from the complainant. The District Forum’s direction for refunding the plot's price as per the government Ready Reckoner rate was justified, but the State Commission's decision caused injustice by setting aside this direction.

(ii) State Commission failed to consider documents, specifically a copy of a Sale Deed filed by the complainant, which demonstrated that the OP had executed Sale Deeds in favor of other purchasers within the same layout. This evidence was meant to illustrate the increase in property prices in the same layout, justifying the original direction for a refund based on today's government Ready Reckoner rate.

(iii) That despite the State Commission finding that the OP had not presented a convincing case and had taken a false defense, the State Commission unjustifiably modified the District Forum's direction for a refund of the plot's price as per the government Ready Reckoner rate. State Commission incorrectly held that the complainant had not paid the entire consideration amount and therefore was not entitled to a refund based on the government Ready Reckoner rate. Complainant asserts that the Bayana Patra, dated 16.03.2006, clearly stipulated that the remaining amount would be paid at the time of executing the Sale Deed. Thus, the State Commission's decision is deemed illogical and baseless.

(iv) State Commission erroneously modified the District Forum's order regarding the refund of the amount and failed to consider that the complainant is financially disadvantaged and unable to purchase another plot due to the OP's negligence and unfair trade practices. This failure to acknowledge the evidence of the hike in plot prices caused an unjust outcome in the State Commission's order.

Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

(i) The counsel for Petitioner/complainant contends and denies the Respondent/OP’s assertion before the District Forum, that the complainant failed to make equal monthly installment payments as stipulated in the agreement. Counsel argues that the OP did not issue any passbook to the complainant at any point. Additionally, the agreement from 16.03.2006 did not mandate equal monthly installment payments, nor did the OP request payment of the consideration amount before the execution of the sale deed. OP never sent a demand letter to the complainant regarding these alleged payment issues. Furthermore, OP did not provide any prior notice to the complainant about the cancellation of the plot allotment and OP did not provide any supporting documents to defend their case during the proceedings before the District Forum. Consequently, the District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, determining that the complainant qualifies as a consumer of the OP's services. The District Forum also found that the OP did not furnish any documents to substantiate their claim that they had sold the disputed plot to another buyer. Therefore, Fora did not accept the OP's argument regarding the resale of the plots to a new purchaser other than the complainant.

(ii) The counsel further argues that the documents presented during the appeal process are suspected to be forged and fabricated by the OP, making them unreliable for consideration. Notably, the agreement from 16.03.2006 did not include conditions regarding default in payments leading to plot cancellation. The complainant consistently expressed their willingness to purchase the plots and even approached the OP with the remaining consideration amount on several occasions. However, the OP's refusal to execute the sale deed within the agreed timeframe suggests a breach of the agreement's conditions on their part. The complainant remains ready to complete the purchase by paying the outstanding amount and obtaining the sale deed. Moreover, a copy of a sale deed executed by the OP in favor of another purchaser was submitted to demonstrate the OP's capability to execute a sale deed for the complainant. The OP is attempting to extract more money by reselling the plots, creating third-party interests. The State Commission failed to recognize the OP's unfair trade practices and modified the original order, causing injustice to the complainant.

(iii) The counsel for Respondent/OP argues that the appeal was allowed by the State Commission on 04.01.2018, modifying the District Forum's order in which OP was directed to refund the earnest amount of Rs.5,000/- each, along with 18% interest and pay Rs. 25,000/- as a loss. The OP complied with the State Commission's order by depositing the specified amounts, totaling Rs.67,270/-, through a DD dated 14.02.2018. The complainant challenged the State Commission's order by filing the present revision, but no grounds for interference with the State Commission’s judgment are established. The Counsel further argues that the complainant had initially claimed a refund of Rs.5,000/- each with 24% interest in their complaint and the State Commission rightly modified this claim. The counsel relies on various judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where this principle is cited, that relief cannot exceed the prayers made in the complaint, in Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Anr. (2008) 17 SCC 491, Gaiv Dinshaw Irani vs Tehmtan Irani & Ors. (2014) 8 SCC 294 and Om Prakash & Ors.  vs. Ram Kumar & Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 441.

(iv) The counsel further argues that complainant had only paid Rs.5,000/- back in 2006 and did not provide evidence of having sufficient funds to pay the remaining consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each in 2006 or at the time of filing the complaint. Therefore, seeking a refund of the market value of the plot by paying only Rs.5,000/- is considered legally unsustainable. The complainant's grounds for the revision do not justify interference with the State Commission's judgment, which was based on settled legal principles. The revision petition was filed with the intent to harass the OP, despite OP's compliance with the State Commission's order in 2018.

We have carefully gone through the Agreement to Sell, orders of the State Commission, District Forum and other connected records.  The Agreement to Sell clearly states that on 16.03.2006 i.e. the date of signing the Agreement to Sell, the vendor has received earnest money of Rs.5,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is payable at the time of Execution of Sale Deed of the said plot (with total consideration being Rs.1,05,000/-).  In this Agreement to Sell, there is no mention of any monthly instalment as has been contended by the Petitioner  before this Commission as well as Fora below.  State Commission has given a clear finding on this aspect.  The relevant portion of which is reproduced below:-

“18.  We considered the contentions of both the parties. We find that though the appellant has raised a strong ground that he had provided the installments recorder books to the respondent to deposit the remaining amount of the purchase price in installments and though the appellant further stressed that he had issued caution notices to the respondents to pay the installment, however, there is no supporting evidence in form of office copies of same books from the appellant & also the appellant has not specified as to for which month the respondents had failed to deposit the installments. The appellant also could not show as to whether he issued notices immediately after finding the respondent not depositing the installments but has shown us a cyclostyle notice indicating that the notices were sent without any specific mention of the defaulted installments.

These observations recorded above show that it is not possible to accept the contentions of the appellant that he had rightly issued the installments recorder passbooks and the respondents had failed to pay the installments as per conditions enumerated therein. Also when the Bayana Patra is written clearly with no mention of such condition of payment through installments, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted that he had provided the facility of payment in installments which the respondents had failed to pay so as to loose their right of getting the sale deed of the plots by paying balance consideration of plots at the time of sale deed. Only ground of the appellant that the respondents in spite of directions did not submit the installments recorder passbooks before the learned Forum does not justify the contentions of the appellant that he had provided such installments recorder passbooks and the respondents had not deposited the installments.

This clearly shows that the learned Forum has rightly disbelieved the contentions of the appellant and has rightly held deficiency in service on the part of the appellant which cannot be over ruled. We therefore, find that the order of the Forum by which direction is given in clause No. 2 of impugned orders to provide sale deed of plot to respondents deserves to be confirmed.”

However, we notice that despite the State Commission agreeing with the findings of the District Forum regarding deficiency in service, it has modified the relief to the complainant, observing that the State Commission find an error in the order of the District Forum that it has directed in Clause No. 2 of the impugned order or alternatively to return the present market price of plots to the respondents by deducting the already paid amount by the respondent from it.  The State Commission has modified the alternate direction by replacing it with the direction to return the amount paid by the respondents with interest @18%  per annum from the date of proposed sale deed till the date of final payment and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to each of the respondent for loss caused to them.

We do not agree with the reasoning given by the State Commission for modifying the relief as above.  Both the Fora below i.e. District Forum and State Commission have given concurrent finding on the deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner herein.  Terms and conditions of the Agreement to Sell are very clear.  There is no fault on the part of the Respondent.  Action of the Petitioner in having sold the said plots to third party is wrong. Hence, in the given circumstances, the alternate relief granted by the District Forum is justified.

In view of above, the order of the State Commission is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored.  The Revision Petition stands disposed off accordingly.  Parties to bear their respective costs for the instant Revision Petition.

The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.