B.K. TRIVEDI vs PARVATI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

PETITIONER/complainant became member of the respondent/opposite party society for allotment of a plot of 1000 sq. fts. He deposited Rs. 24,000 from time-to-time. On plot not being allotted, the petitioner filed complaint which was contested by the respondent. In written version the stand taken by the respondent was that the petitioner did not pay development and other charges despite being asked repeatedly and as no plot was available with the society it is unable to allot a plot to him. In regard to later part of plea, statement was also made by the Counsel of respondent that society did not have any plot for being allotted to the petitioner. District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 24,000 with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 20.4.1994, to pay Rs. 10,000 by way of compensation and cost of Rs. 1,000 vide order dated 18.7.2005. Appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 22.8.2006.

SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. J.P. Sharma for petitioner is that the petitioner is interested only in allotment of a plot and not the refund of money and the stand taken by the respondent before the Fora below that no plot was available for being allotted to the petitioner was false. In support of the submission, he has invited our attention to a copy of the brochure offering for sale of houses filed by way of Annexure P-4 along with revision petition. Since this brochure seems to be not before the Fora below, it cannot be looked into at revisional stage. Written version wherein stand to the said effect was taken, was supported by the affidavit of N.K. Patel, President of the society. Since the petitioner had not paid the development and other charges and there being no plot available with the society the District Forum was justified in passing the order for refund of the deposited amount with interest and compensation and that order had been rightly affirmed by the State Commission. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.