AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Viswanath, J
The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore Circuit Sitting, Indore (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 1147/2011 dated 13.12.2012.
In the Complaint Case, it was stated that the Petitioner/Complainant booked Plot No. 97 of the size 15 x 40 sq. ft., i.e., 600 sq. ft. situated in Daulat Nagar colony at a cost of Rs.9000/- only (with the Respondent/Opposite Party), and deposited the amount in parts. The Petitioner paid all the installments. The Respondent stated as there was a ban imposed by the Collector on sale of plot, registration would be done as soon as permission was obtained. As registration of the Plot was not done despite several requests, a Complaint was filed.
The Respondent filed Written Statement that Daulat Nagar colony was developed and constructed by him, but there was no deal with the Petitioner regarding sale of any plot for Rs.9,000/-. There was, therefore, no question of handing over the possession or registry of the Plot to the Petitioner. The receipts submitted by the Petitioner were forged. The Respondent had not given any kind of receipt to the Petitioner nor had any amount been deposited by the Petitioner with the Respondent. It was further reiterated that the dispute of the Petitioner was not of the nature of consumer dispute, it was a dispute in calculation and money transaction. The deal with the Respondent was done orally and some receipts were received but the said receipts were not the receipt regarding any sale - purchase or any agreement. There has been no transaction of services between the Petitioner and the Respondent. Hence, this suit was worth dismissal according to section 2(1) (d). The Petitioner referred to the oral agreement and hence the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to hearing this case. Hence, the suit of the Petitioner was to be dismissed with costs.
District Forum, vide order dated 30.04.2011, dismissed the Complaint on the ground of limitation and on the ground that there was no valid written agreement signed between the parties. Oral agreements cannot be acknowledged as per law.
Being aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission.
State Commission, vide order dated 13.12.2012, while partly allowing the appeal of the Petitioner, stated that "we have heard Shri Sulabh Samaiya, learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. None was appeared for the Respondent. Mr. Samaiya has produced before us a list prepared by the Additional Collector, Dhar about the eligible persons who are entitled to have a plot in which the name of the Complainant appears at serial no. 66. This shows that after examination of the entire list the appellant has been found eligible for allotment of plot no. 97. Even if it is taken for granted that it was a security given against the plot, the respondent is accountable for the same. In the result, we direct that if the plot no. 97 is vacant, the respondent shall effect its sale to the appellant by a registered sale deed, hand-over its possession and if not to refund the amount of Rs.9000/- with 18% interest from the date of receipt to the appellant. With the above directions this appeal is partly allowed."
Being aggrieved by the order of State Commission, Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before this Hon'ble Commission.
The Petitioner has annexed some judgements in support of his case which are stated as follows:-
Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. Versus Beena Rani, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that " the reasons assigned by the State Commission for entertaining the respondent's prayer for issue of a direction to the petitioners for allotment of alternative plot to her are legally correct and the National Commission did not commit any error by refusing to interfere with the same. The manner in which the petitioners have acted for more than 15 years in the matter of giving possession of the plot allotted to the respondent speaks volume of the arbitrariness with which they treat the allottees of the plot and harass them for years together in different ways."
Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Sneha Lata Tewari, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that " However, even after going through the impugned order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, we find no illegality or perversity in the same. Admittedly, there has been a deficiency of service on the part of the appellant and therefore, the appellant has been directed to pay certain amounts to the respondent which have been worked out in the impugned order. Apart from this, the appellant has also been directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony, along with other reliefs, as she was made to suffer for a long period and was put to great humiliation."
Binay Krishna Versus Bihar State Housing Board, in which Supreme Court held that " Therefore, it is reasonable to take the view that the National Commission, under some mistaken impression made a recording in its order dated 4th July, 2005 about the statement allegedly made by the appellant that he was not interested in the allotment of plot. Therefore, dismissal of the application filed by the appellant for modification of that order was not at all justified. We are also of the view that there was absolutely no justification for the National Commission to reduce the rate of interest from 18% to 15% per annum and not to indicate the time period for which the interest was payable by the Board."
M/s Fortune Infrastructure (Now Known as M/S Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr. Versus Trevor D'Lima & Ors., in which Supreme Court held that "the claim of the respondents (complainants) as granted by the NCDRC seems to surpass the actual-loss based damages and enter the domain of gain-based remedy. Although we do not recognize any a priopri limitations on such claim, but we do not think that it would be appropriate to grant such damages in the case at hand. There is no dispute about the fact that damages for the contractual breach is generally compensatory arising out of the breach. Therefore, the damages awarded should not be excessive and a court/tribunal needs a balanced approach so as to ensure right compensation."
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent. They reiterated his respective contentions as stated above. We have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.
The case of the Petitioner / Complainant is that she has booked Plot No. 97 in Daulat Nagar Colony, Indore and paid Rs.9,000/- to the Respondent. The Respondent issued receipt against the payments, but noted that the amount was for security purpose. The Respondent admitted that he had developed Daulat Nagar Colony but not entered into any agreement to sell the plot for a sum of Rs.9,000/- to the Complainant. He also denied the issue of receipts to the Complainant. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, stating that no written agreement existed between the parties and there is no provision in law for oral deal. The State Commission, however, has gone in detail into the whole issue and directed that "if Plot No. 97 is vacant, the Respondent shall effect its sale to the appellant by a registered sale deed, hand-over its possession and if not to refund the amount of Rs.9,000/- with 18% interest from the date of receipt to the appellant."
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant to set aside the order of the State Commission as well as the order of the District Forum and issue direction to Respondent to refund the present market value of 600 sq. ft. plot if it was not possible to execute the sale deed of the said plot.
It is an admitted fact that the Respondent has developed Daulat Nagar Colony. In the list, prepared by Additional Collector, Dhar, of persons found eligible for allotment of plots, the name of the Petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 66. Respondent has not denied having received any payment whatsoever from the Complainant, even if there was no written agreement between them. The Complainant being found eligible by Additional Collector Dhar for allotment of a plot and having paid the consideration for the plot, even if it is shown as towards security against the plot, the Respondent is accountable for the same.
The State Commission has rightly ordered registering the sale of Plot No. 97 to the Petitioner, if found vacant and if not to refund the amount of Rs.9,000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. The order passed by the State Commission is based on record and is reasonable, just and fair. We see no reason to interfere with the order. The Revision Petition is dismissed.