GOVIND SINGH BISHT vs DAN SINGH BHAKUNI

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 1.5.1999 passed by the District Forum, Nainital whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for the refund of the deposits made by the complainant along with interest @ 18% and compensation of Rs. 1,000 and cost of litigation of Rs. 500.

THE brief facts of the case are that Foot Hill Industries and Properties advertised for sale of plots. THE complainant deposited Rs. 4,050 on 14.7.1991. THE price was fixed at Rs. 40,500. THE complainant again deposited Rs. 8,100 on 24.1.1992 and Rs. 4,090 on 28.5.1992. In spite of registration and these payments, for about 32 months, no plot was given to the complainant. THE complainant made several correspondence but no reply was given, thereafter the complainant filed the complaint. Before the learned Forum, Foot Hill Industries and Sh. Narendra Singh Mehra did not file any written statement. Only opposite party No. 3, Sh. Govind Singh Bisht (herein appellant) filed writen statement. He alleged that the partnership has been dissolved on 26.10.1995 and the opposite party No. 3 has nothing to do with the partnership firm.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and taking their evidence, the learned Forum allowed the complaint, against which order the present appeal has been filed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. This was a partnership firm. Both Sh. Narendra Singh Mehra and Sh. Govind Singh Bisth were its partners and liable for the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm. Both partners are severally and jointly liable. The money was received by them up to 1992 and the disslution of the partnership was on 26.10.1995. That was an internal matter between the two partners. There was a privity of contract between the complainant and the partnership firm. The rights of the complainant, which were against the appellant, cannot be taken away by this dissolution deed. The complainant has got a right against both the partners. One partner cannot say that I take the liability of the other partner without the consent of the creditor, therefore, this partnership dissolution has got no force. It was also argued that the complaint is barred by time. This plea was not raised before the learned Forum. Even otherwise the appellant has taken the money. There was regular correspondence. He did not pay the amount. Hence the registered notices were given. These were not replied. Therefore, limitation shall not be a hurdle in this case. Even otherwise the money of the complainant was with the appellant. It was not a debt to have been barred within 3 years. It survived till the house was allotted to him. Therefore, the complaint was not barred by time.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant argued that interest @ 18% is on the higher side. THE appellant took the money of the complainant. He did not give him a plot and did not return the money. In housing matters, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has allowed interest @ 18%. The compensation of Rs. 1,000 has also been given. In the manner in which the complainant has been harassed and put into litigation and his amount has been tried to be digested, the award of compensation of Rs. 1,000 cannot be said to be illegal. Cost of Rs. 500 has also been rightly awarded. There is no force in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. The complainant is free to proceed with the execution procedings. Appeal dismissed.