Kamlesh Kumar Mishra vs Praksh Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd

THE case of the Revision Petitioner/Complainant is that he had applied for allotment of a flat in Pooja Apartments, a scheme advertised by the Respondent/Opposite Party. It was booked on 21.3.2004, with Rs.25,000/- as the booking amount. A similar adjoining flat was booked by the applicant''s father on the same day. THE dispute apparently related to the total price, which was Rs.7,11,000/- according to the Respondent and Rs.5.86,000/- according to the Revision Petitioner. Significantly, neither party produced in the fora below the original or photocopy of the agreement of sale in this behalf.

THE District Forum came to the conclusion that cancellation of the allotment by the Builder / Respondent on the purported ground of non-payment of the first instlament was wrong and amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. It therefore, ordered refund of the booking amount along with compensation and costs. THE appeal of the Complainant against this order was dismissed by the State Commission. The Complainant is now before us, through this revision petition against the order of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He has sought a direction to the Builder/Respondent to give the possession of the flat at the cost agreed by him and compensate him in this behalf.

We have heard the counsels for the parties with reference to the records of this case. On the claim of the Revision Petitioner that he had paid an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as the first installment through a cheque, the counsel for RP has mentioned that the cheque was sent to the Builder, but returned by him to the Complainant. He could not point to any documentary evidence submitted on this point before the fora below. However, the respondent counsel stated that there is no dispute on this point. The cheque of 14.6.2004 was returned to the complainant on 23.6.2004. It is however, alleged by the Revision Petitioner that the respondent had refused to give a receipt of Rs.1,25,000/-. This allegation become meaningless in the background of his own admission before the fora below that the cheque was returned to him. The veracity of the allegation also becomes doubtful as between the same parties, there was no dispute regarding acknowledgement/receipt when it came to the initial deposit of Rs.25,000/-.

BEFORE the State Commission, the case of the Builder was that bookings of the two flats had been cancelled on the request of the complainant''s father. The booking amount was refunded to the father with reference to his flat and the booking amount in the case of the Revision Petitioner was returned to him with a letter of 23.6.2004, produced as Ext P-1 in the fora below. The enclosed cheque towards booking amount was not accepted by the RP. Even in the revision petition before us, while making a request for direction to the Builder, no reference has been made to this letter of 23.6.2004, much less to any evidence contradicting it. The State Commission has observed that in the absence of a written agreement between the parties and mutually contradictory oral contentions of the two parties, it was not even possible for the Commission to determine whether Rs.5,86,000/- was the agreed price of the flats or Rs.7,11,000/-.

IN view of the above, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the State Commission and its direction to the Respondent to refund Rs.25,000/- , being the booking amount, to the RP/Complainant. The revision petition is according dismissed, with no orders as to costs.