Welcome Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr vs Govind Shamrao Meshram

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist - Cooperative Housing Society, and perused the material on record.

Both revision petitions are filed against a common Order of the State Commission in First Appeal No. A/17/138 and A/17/139 dated 12.04.2019. The instant revision petitions are disposed of by this common Order. The facts are drawn from R.P. No. 1118 of 2019.

The complainants / petitioners had booked the plot in the lay-out of opposite party Welcome Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The complainants had intention to construct their own house. The complainant Govindrao Shamrao Meshram desired to purchase a plot no. 51, measuring 2100 sq. ft. and paid Rs. 49,500/- whereas the complainant Shamrao S. Rangari paid Rs. 19,500/- for plot no. 91, measuring 1615 sq. ft. Both the complainants were ready and willing to pay the entire consideration of the plot as agreed but the grievance of complainants is that despite demand for sale deed, the opposite party avoided it and also denied the transaction took place between them. Therefore, being aggrieved, both the complainants have filed separate complaints viz CC No. 484/2012 and CC No. 483/2012 before the District Forum, Nagpur.

The complaint was resisted by the OP by filing a reply. It was contended that the OPs did not enter into Agreement with the Complainant for the plots in question. No amount was received from the Complainants and the complaints were false.

The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 03.03.2017 and directed the OPs to execute the Sale Deed lawfully in favour of the Complainant after accepting the remaining amount from the Complainant. If the OPs are unable to execute the Sale Deed, then, the amount at that day's market rate was to be given and if possible, register the Sale Deed by giving another plot of the same size in another lay- out to the Complainant. Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and litigation cost respectively were also awarded. The District Forum made observation which reads as below:

The opposite parties have stated in their reply that they have no any concern with the complainant, they do not know the complainant, they have not made any transaction of plot with him and his Complaint is false and baseless. On perusal of the documents filed by the complainant with his Complaint it is seen that, the receipt towards payment of amounts of the allotted plot made to the opposite party Society are filed by the complainant on record. There is the entry of Plot Number allotted to the complainant on those Receipts and the signatures are seen towards acceptance of the amount by the office bearers of the Society. Further, the complainant has filed the copy of the Electricity Bill and the Photograph as the evidences that he is residing there by erecting own katcha hut. The opposite parties have not filed any document or brought the evidence on rcord in respect of their reply that the complainant does not reside on the said plot or basically the said plot is not allotted on the name of the complainant. They have only stated in their reply that I do not know the complainant and no Agreement of the Plot was made with him. On the contrary, the complainant has filed the Affidavit that he had purchased the said plot from the opposite party Society and, therefore, the Forum feels that the complainant is eligible to get the Sale-Deed of the plot executed from the opposite parties by paying remaining amount of the plot.

Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the OP preferred two appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and ordered to pay a further litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the OPs to the Complainants with the following observations:

The learned Forum, had considered the various entries in respect of amount deposited from time to time and acknowledged on behalf of the OPs evidence and the documentary evidence produced by the complainants to pass an award which is impugned herein.

The learned advocate of the appellant, has submitted that in own transactions the complainants are not in possession of original documents nor sufficient evidence is laid to believe the case of the complainant to pass an award in their favour.

At the hearing of the appeal, we had queried about the record of the society indicating the names of office bearers also their accounts maintained including their bank details since the society denied the transactions. We have also seen some receipts whereby entry fee, share capital and management charges were accepted from Mr. Shamrao Sampatrao Rangari by the OP/society in the sum of Rs. 285/- bearing Sr. No. 128 and also bearing registration number of the society who signed on behalf of society is a fact best known to the management of the society. The society cannot in our opinion fight shy about non production of the material documents dealing with the transactions of the society. The society remained evasive throughout about produced material documents which laid us to draw adverse inference against the society and on the basis of prima facie evidence, the learned Forum did nothing wrong to pass an award in favour of the complainants holding that the complainant as a consumers were entitled to the relief and the OP (society) had indulged into deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. That being so, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no inference is warranted in the impugned award. We dismiss these appeals with further litigation cost in the sum of Rs. 5,000 payable by appellants to each of the complainants in both these cases.

Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the OPs have approached this Commission.

Heard the arguments and perused the material on record. It is seen that the Complainants have paid some certain amounts to the OPs with regard to the allotted plot in question. There is no evidence to the contrary. Documentary evidence exists to show that each Complainant was a registered member of the OP - Society. The OPs cannot deny the transactions made with the Complainant.

I find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), I find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. I find the award made by the District Forum, and as affirmed by the State Commission, to be just and appropriate. And, on the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.

The Revision Petitions are dismissed.