Subhash Builders vs Umesh Suresh Jadav

SH . Umesh Suresh Jadav and Mrs. Minal Umesh Jadhav, the complainants, entered into an Agreement of Sale with M/s. Subhash Builders, OP, vide Agreement dated 09.10.2006/17.10.2006. Out of the total consideration of Rs.11,03,000/ -, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.2,29,000/ -, on 04.10.2006 and 15.12.2006. According to the OP, the entire remaining consideration amount was to be paid in the sum of Rs.8,85,000/ - within a period of 8 days from the date of execution of the Agreement. We have perused that endorsement written in hand. Since the amount was not paid within 8 days, therefore, the agreement was terminated on 11.07.2007 and the flat was sold to third -party on 26.07.2007. It is noteable that even after the elapse of said 8 days, the Builder further accepted payment of Rs.1,01,000/ - by cheque from the purchaser on 15.12.2006. It is difficult to fathom, why did the OP accept Rs.1,01,000/ - after the elapse of the said 8 days. The District Forum directed the Builder/OP to refund partial consideration of Rs.2,29,000/ - with interest @ 9% p.a. The District Forum did not award any compensation for harassment and mental agony.

THE State Commission, however, granted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ - to the complainants, in addition to the relief already granted by the District Forum and imposed costs in the sum of Rs.3,000/ - upon the OP payable to the complainants.

AGGRIEVED by that order, the present revision petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ OP vehemently argued that the complainants made no prayer for the compensation. It was contended that the State Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ -. The counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record two judgments Birght Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2012 2 CPJ 151 and Ramesh R. Trivedi Vs. M/s. Amber Tower Co -operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors., 1998 1 BCR(Cons) 77. In these judgments, it was held that parties are bound by the agreement. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was wrongly saddled with the above said compensation. We clap no significance to these arguments. Although, the condition to pay the rest amount within 8 days, appears to be unreasonable and unjust, and scribbling of this condition, in hand written note, while other terms and conditions are typed ones, this appears to be an after -thought, yet, in view of the acceptance of the amount on 15.12.2006, after the termination of the agreement, the condition regarding payment of amount within 8 days, pales into insignificance. Even after acceptance of the amount, OP went on to sell it to a third -party. It clearly goes to show deficiency on its part. The acceptance of the amount, after the cancellation of the agreement, evanesces the value of the argument urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the party must remain bound by its contract. As a matter of fact, the OP has made an attempt to avail benefit of both the worlds, as at the same time, he was getting the price of this flat, from two different parties. No warning was given after the acceptance of Rs.1,01,000/ -. The agreement was terminated, abruptly. No further terms and conditions were formulated after acceptance of the sum of Rs.1,01,000/ -.

THERE is no requirement of the law that the consumer/ complainant should ask for compensation, separately. The facts and circumstances of each case, speak for themselves. The prayer made by the complainants, before the District Forum, is reproduced here, as under : - "A) The opponent may please be directed to execute Sale Deed (Deed of Assignment/ Transfer) in respect of the property described in para 1 above, and to hand over actual and physical possession of the said flat to the applicants.

B) That cost of the application may please be awarded to the applicants from the opponent / respondent

C) Any other order in the interest of justice and equity may kindly be passed".

IT is clear that prayer clause (C) quoted above, clearly goes to show that the complainants prayed for any other relief, in the interest of justice and equity. Consequently, the State Commission, did not commit any error in granting a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ -, as compensation.

IT must be borne in mind that the prices of the property, i.e., land, flat, etc., have increased, by leaps and bounds. The OP has made it hot for the complainants to opt for any other flat, at this stage. It is going to cost them dearly. The Court has to take ''down -to -earth'' view. Reality has to dominate the mind of the Commission. The order of the State Commission has no flaw. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.