AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Heard Mr. Shekhar Bhambri, Advocate for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondent.
This revision has been filed against the order of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur, dated 07.10.2014 by which Appeal No.82/2014 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and Appeal No.79/2014 filed by the respondent, namely, M/s. Gaurav Promoters and Builders has been allowed and order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, dated 06.01.2014, passed in CC/11/2013 has been set aside.
Satwant Kaur Broka (petitioner) filed Consumer Complaint No.11 of 2013 for directing M/s. Gaurav Promotes & Builders (the respondent), for giving possession of Duplex Bungalow No.25 and give compensation @ Rs.15000/- per month for a period of 30 months (amount of rent paid by the complainant) and Rs.400000/- for mental pain and harassment and to issue the receipt of the amount of Rs.100000/- on account of realization of electricity charges, electricity meter, transformer, service tax and advance maintenance etc. The complainant has also prayed for interest @18% per annum from 06.08.2010 and the cost of litigation.
It has been stated that the respondent was doing business of promoting and selling the residential houses. The petitioner booked plot No.25 area 1500 sq.ft. with the respondent, on 31.07.2007, on which the duplex bungalow had to be constructed. As per demand of the respondent, the petitioner made the payment. Thereafter, a registered sale deed was executed on 06.05.2010 in favour of the petitioner by the respondent of the aforesaid duplex. Although the registered sale deed was executed on 06.05.2010, but its possession was not delivered, as at that time, the construction work was not complete and the respondent took some time for completing the construction work and obtaining electricity connection etc. As per demand, the petitioner paid a cheque of Rs. One lac on 27.06.2012, towards electricity connection charges. Even after the completion of construction and electricity connection, the possession was not delivered to the petitioner, then the petitioner made query from the respondent but the respondent did not give satisfactory reply. The petitioner then issued a legal notice dated 29.11.2012, which was served on respondent on 02.01.2013. Even after the service of notice, the respondent did not give possession to the petitioner, then the complaint was filed on 07.01.2013.
The respondent filed its written reply in complaint in which the material facts have not been denied. The respondent took plea that a part of sale consideration i.e. Rs.500000/- was remained unpaid due to which possession could not be given to the petitioner. In the written reply, the respondent has admitted that cheque No.232721 of Rs.500000/- was given to the respondent, but they took plea that due to some reason, it could not be encashed and the petitioner was given information in this respect. When the respondent informed that the cheque No.232721 was not encashed, then its date was again mentioned by the complainant as 05.01.2012 and the amount was encashed on 23.03.2012. The electricity charges etc. of Rs.100000/- was given in June, 2012.
The District Forum after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner has already handed over cheque No.232721 to the respondent at the time of sale deed dated 06.05.2010, but due to negligence of the respondent, it could not be encashed at that time. Later on, the date was revalidated as 05.01.2012 and the amount was encashed on 23.03.2012. The amount of electricity charges were also given on 27.06.2012 vide cheque No.956895. There was no default on the part of the complainant and even then the possession was not handed over to the complainant. On these findings, District Forum, by order dated 06.01.2014 directed the respondent to give possession of duplex bungalow No.25 to the petitioner, immediately and pay Rs.400000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation.
Both the parties filed their separate appeals from the order of District Forum. The appeal of the petitioner was registered as Appeal No.82/2014 while, Appeal of the respondent was registered as Appeal No.79/2014. Both the appeals were consolidated decided by the judgment dated 07.10.2014 by the State Commission, Chhattisgarh and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the appeal filed by respondent was allowed and the complaint was dismissed. Hence, this revision has been filed.
I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. The State Commission in the impugned order has found that the amount of Rs.500000/- was not paid by the petitioner for a period of two years and similarly the amount of Rs.100000/- relating to electricity charges etc. was also delayed. In such circumstances, the petitioner was not entitled for any compensation for mental agony. On these findings, the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed. State Commission has failed to notice the admission of the respondent in para 3 of its written statement that the cheque No.232721of Rs.500000/- was delivered to respondent at the time of execution of the sale deed on 06.05.2010 and due to negligence of the respondent that the cheque was not presented for encashment. As soon as it was brought to the notice of the petitioner, the date was revalidated as 05.01.2012 and it was encashed on 23.03.2012. So far as electricity charges relating to electricity are concerned, for which demand was not raised in 2010 was rather demand raised in June, 2012 and cheque No.956895 of Rs.100000/- was delivered to the respondent, which was encashed in June, 2012 itself.
There was no default on the part of the petitioner. In spite of the fact that the petitioner had complied with all the formalities and duly made the payment as per demand of the respondent, he could not get the possession over the duplex bungalow, for a period of about two years six months and as such under these circumstances, the award of compensation of Rs.400000/- by the District Forum cannot be considered to be improper. The counsel for the petitioner insisted for award of compensation relating to the rent paid by the petitioner, for the period for which he was deprived from possession. As District Forum has granted Rs.400000/- as the compensation, I am not inclined to grant any further compensation. On the aforesaid finding, the revision is partly allowed.
ORDER
In the result, the revision succeeds and is part allowed. The order of the State Commission dated 07.10.2014, in FA14/79 and FA/14/82 is set aside. Order of the District Forum dated 06.01.2014 in CC11/2013 is reinstated.