JAGDISH CHANDER GULATI vs M/S. MERA BABA REALITY ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.

This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 04.02.2015 in First Appeal No. 143/14 as also the subsequent orders of the State Commission dated 30.10.2015 and 29.02.2016.

Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner booked a shop no. SS-816 located in a commercial project undertaken by the respondent opposite party. The consideration agreed between the parties was Rs.10,50,000/- to be paid in instalments. It is the case of the complainant that he regularly paid the instalments against the consideration amount and during the period w.e.f. 07.03.2005 to 30.06.2007, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the OP. On 27.02.2007 the complainant received a letter from the opposite party intimating that the space booked by the complainant was ready and for the fit out purpose, the complainant was advised to meet Mr. Mehak. When the complainant went to take possession of the subject shop, he was surprised to know that shop no.SS-816 was not available and the opposite party was not in a position to hand over said shop to the complainant. The complainant, thereafter, made several personal visits and showed his willingness to pay balance consideration amount with a view to get possession of the booked shop but in vain. This led to the filing of the consumer complaint. The consumer complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing a written statement.

The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party as under: "1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment.

Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the pain and agony suffered by him.

Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation."

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the opposite party approached the State Commission in Appeal. On 04.02.2015, after some arguments, parties arrived at amicable settlement and the appeal was disposed of vide impugned order dated 04.02.2015 in terms of settlement. The relevant observation of the impugned order is reproduced as under: "After some arguments, the parties have settled the matter as under: Ld. Counsel for the appellant under the instructions from the appellant has stated that the appellant is ready to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondent along with interest @ 11% from the date of deposit till payment. It is further stated that appellant is also ready to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- instead of 5,00,000/- as awarded by the District Forum. It is stated that appellant shall also pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the District Forum. It is stated that appellant is ready to settle the matter as per terms stated above with respondent.

Respondent is present in person who has stated that he is ready to settle the matter as per terms stated above and has no objection if the impugned order is modified in terms of settlement between the parties. Counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid amount shall be paid to respondent in 4 equally monthly instalments. Respondent has no objection for the same.

Let the first instalment be paid on 16.03.2015 by way of demand draft in favour of respondent. The remaining 3 instalments be given by 16 th of every successive month.

The appeal stands disposed of in terms of settlement between the parties. List for making payment of 1 st instalment on 16.03.2015."

The petitioner not being satisfied with the order of the State Commission moved an application dated 11.06.2015 for review of the impugned order dated 04.02.2015. The application was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 30.10.2015 with following observations: "The respondent has already moved an application dated 11.06.2015 for review of order dated 04.02.2015. It is not necessary to go into the contents of the application because this Commission has no power to review as per decision of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitender Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Kakerkar (2011) 9 SCC 541.

Moreover, perusal of order dated 04.02.2015 shows that same was not on merits. Rather it was a compromise order. The appellant agreed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- lacs to the respondent alongwith interest @ 11% from the date of deposit till payment. The appellant also agreed to pay compensation of Rs.1.5 lac instead of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by District Forum. The appellant further agreed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the District Forum. The respondent agreed to settle the matter on said terms and stated that he has no objection if the impugned order is modified in terms of settlement. The appellant sought time to pay the amount in four equal monthly instalments for which also the respondent stated that he has no objection. First instalment was to be paid on 16.03.2015 and remaining three installments by 16 th of each succeeding month. The parties appended their signatures in token of having agreed to settle the matter.

Since the order is not based on merits and is not adjudicated by this Commission, the same cannot be challenged by way of review or any other method. The application has been moved more than four months after passing of order and after having received substantial amount by way of three instalments out of four installments.

Application for review moved by respondent stands dismissed."

Thereafter, petitioner filed another application for review seeking recall of order dated 30.10.2015. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 29.02.2016 holding that review application is not maintainable.

Being aggrieved of the aforesaid three orders, the petitioner has filed revision petition. The petitioner who has appeared in person has contended that impugned order dated 04.02.2015 is not sustainable because the settlement recorded in the order dated 04.02.2015 is not a voluntary settlement but the petitioner was misled by the opposite party to enter into the said settlement and he was not properly explained the terms of settlement before passing the impugned order.

We do not find merit in the contention of the petitioner. On reading of the relevant portion of the order dated 04.02.2015 reproduced above, we find that State Commission recorded that offer of the appellant to pay Rs.8,00,000/- alongwith 11% interest thereon from the date of deposit till the payment besides Rs.1,50,000/- compensation instead of Rs.5,00,000/- as awarded by the District Forum as also the litigation expenses was accepted by the respondent. It is also recorded that as per the settlement, parties agreed that settlement amount shall be paid in four equal monthly instalments. The stand of the petitioner that he was misled while entering into the settlement without making him understand the scope of terms of settlement, is not acceptable for the reason that admittedly the review application was moved by the petitioner four months after the impugned order dated 04.02.2015 after having accepted the three instalments in terms of the settlement order. If the petitioner was not satisfied with the terms of settlement, then in the natural course of circumstances, he should not have accepted the instalments. After having acted upon the terms of settlement, now the petitioner has no right to challenge the settlement. Thus, in our view, there is no infirmity in the order of the State Commission dated 04.02.2015 as also the subsequent two order dated 30.10.2015 and 29.02.2016 dismissing the review petitions.

In view of the above, we do not find merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Since we have dismissed the revision petition on merits, no order on application of condonation of delay is called for.