C G DONGRE vs GANESH GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI

-PETITIONER was the complainant. He was a member of the respondent/opposite party Society. Total amount of Rs. 1,08,305 was deposited by the petitioner with the Society during the years 1990-99 towards cost of the plot proposed to be allotted by the Society. Petitioner is also alleged to have paid in cash amount of Rs. 25,000 on 26. 2. 1990 to the then President of the Society for which no receipt was issued by him. On plot not being allotted by the Society, petitioner filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the respondent-Society. Receipt of the amount of Rs. 25,000 in cash was denied. It was alleged that after approval of the development charges by the members of Society, the Society through the letters dated 28. 9. 1998 and 20. 11. 1998 demanded additional development charges @ Rs. 47 per sq. ft. from the petitioner who defaulted in making payment in time. Although certain payments were made later on but those were accepted subject to the condition that plot may be allotted, if available. In the draw, plot was not allotted to the petitioner as it was not available. Complaint was allowed by the District Forum with direction to the respondent to pay amount of Rs. 1,33,405 with interest by the order dated 14. 5. 2007. Dis-satisfied with this order, both the parties filed appeals and those were disposed of by a common order dated 21. 8. 2007 with direction to the Society to pay Rs. 1,08,305 with interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of deposit. It is this order which is being challenged in this revision.

IN the complaint, the petitioner sought direction to the respondent to allot to him a plot of the size of 35x60 sq. ft. and execute and register Conveyance Deed thereof and pay Rs. 1,00,000 which the petitioner had paid towards rent or in the alternative, to pay difference in amount of plot of Rs. 4,00,000 along with amount of Rs. 1,33,405 with interest @ 12% p. a. In this revision, petitioner seeks the relief which was claimed in the complaint. Thrust of argument advanced by Mr. Sanjay K. Chadha, Adv. whom we have heard on admission, is that the respondent Society should not have accepted the money if the plot was not available for being allotted to the petitioner; State Commission fell in error in dis-believing payment of Rs. 25,000 which the petitioner made in cash to the then President of the Society; impugned order was passed by the President sitting singly which is not permissible under law. It is not disputed that demand of additional development charges @ Rs. 47 per sq. ft. was raised by the Society on the petitioner by the two letters dated 28. 9. 1998 and 20. 11. 1998 and the petitioner defaulted in making payment of the demanded amount in time. Respondent Society cannot be faulted in having received certain payments later on conditionally that plot may be allotted to the petitioner, if available. Further, petitioner did not have any documentary proof for having paid Rs. 25,000 in cash to the then President of the Society. In absence of that proof, the State Commission had rightly held the Society not liable to pay the said amount to the petitioner. As regards, last limb of submission referred to above, under Section 16 (1b) (ii), the President may constitute a Bench of one Member also. Therefore, on none of the said grounds the order passed by State Commission calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.