Thimmanna G. Bhat And Anr. vs Annapurna Mahabaleshwar Hebbar And Mahabaleshwar Sambayya Hebbar

THESE revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 19.11.2007 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1094/2006, Sri Thimmanna G. Bhat &Anr. v. Smt. Annapurna and Appeal No. 1095/2006 in Mahabaleshwar Sambayya Hebbar v. Sri Thimmanna G. Bhat & Anr., by which, appeals were dismissed. Both the revision -petitions arise out of the consolidated order of the learned State Commission, so both the revision petitions are decided by common order.

COMPLAINAN TS /Respondents, husband and wife, filed two complaints bearing Nos. CC 65/2001 and 66/2001, before the District Forum, claiming Rs. 2,04,302 and Rs. 2,03,511, respectively, from O.Ps./petitioners, on account of purchase and sale of shares. O.Ps. contested complaints. Learned District Forum allowed complaints and directed OP to pay Rs. 2,04,302 in Complaint No. 65/2011 and Rs. 2,03,511, after deducting Rs. 1,50,000 in Complaint No. 66/2001, along with interest @ 9% p.a. Appeals filed by petitioner were dismissed by the learned State Commission, against which these revision petitions have been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that matters may be remanded back to learned District Forum as it requires recalculation, hence revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petitions be dismissed.

RECORD reveals that as per Statement of Account given by petitioner pertaining to complaint No. 65/2001, Rs. 2,04,639 has been shown as balance due to the petitioner and in such circumstances, learned District Forum has not committed any error in allowing claim of Rs. 2,04,302 against the petitioner. Settlement arrived at by husband of Complainant, without any authority, is not binding on her. As far complaint No. 66/2001 is concerned, learned District Forum allowed claim of Rs. 53,511. Record reveals that complainant received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as ''full and final'' settlement of share account with the petitioner. He is not entitled to any further amount as ordered by learned District Forum. Learned Counsel for respondents submitted that this settlement was arrived under coercion and misrepresentation but he admitted that this fact has not been mentioned in the complaint. In the absence of any allegation regarding coercion, etc., in the complaint, it cannot be believed that complainant entered into ''full and final'' settlement under coercion. As he agreed to receive Rs. 1,50,000 in ''full and final'' settlement of claim, and has received this amount by two cheques, he cannot get additional Rs. 53,511 and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint of the complainant and learned State Commission has also committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition No. 1020/2008 is to be allowed. Consequently, revision petition No. 1019/2008 is dismissed at admission stage, with no order as to costs. Revision petition No. 1020/2008 filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order of learned State Commission dismissing Appeal No. 1095/2006 is set aside and order of District Forum allowing complaint is also set aside, and complaint stands dismissed