M.M.Shah Consultants Ltd. vs Ravi kumar Budharaja

THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 22nd November 2010 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, "the State Commission"). By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioners by observing, inter alia as under: "5. We find that there is absolutely no merit in the appeal. The fact is tha, the respondent herein wanted a plot in Pune. The appellant herein, induced them to believe that the plot bearing S. no. 87-A-3 situated at Aundh, Pune is likely to be developed by its owner and in the event the said plot of land could not be developed the amount deposited by them would be refunded to the complainants with an interest as per the rate available for FDR. On this assurance complainants made payment of Rs.12,60,000/- on 20.06.2000. In the month of April 2003, the opposite party no. 3 had demanded an amount of Rs.1,68,700/- for stamp duty and an amount of Rs.18,800/- in cash for registration charges, which was also paid by the complainant to opposite parties. However, the sold plot was neither developed nor sale deed of the said plot in favour of the complainants could be executed. Complainants found that, they were cheated by the appellant. Therefore, the complainants filed the complaint before the Forum and Forum rightly turned down defense raised by the opposite parties and held that the opposite parties were guilty of deficiency in service qua the complainant. The Forum below noted that the complainant paid Rs.12,60,000/- to opposite party in the year 2000 and also amount of Rs.18,800/- was deposited by the complainant for registration charges. The Forum below thus clearly held that there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and therefore, the Forum below was pleased to pass award, allowing the complaint. 6. We are finding no substance in the appeal. Appellants have grabbed the amount of Rs.12,60,000/- and Rs.18,800/- and they had not given plot by executing sale deed in favour of the complainants. In such circumstances award passed by the Forum is appearing to be just and proper. No interference is called for in the said award. Hence we pass the following order: Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties".

I have heard Mr. Aditya Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners. There are concurrent findings of the Fora below in this case. The impugned order of the State Commission as well as that the District Forum are based on clearly admitted facts in respect of the payments made by the complainants/ respondents to the petitioners for the plot of land and failure of the petitioners to hand over the possession thereof. In fact, it is also admitted at one stage in the memorandum of the revision petition that the petitioners offered to refund the amount deposited by the respondent.

There is thus nothing in the revision petition or in the submissions made by Mr. Narain which would even remotely establish any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order of the State Commission so as to warrant intervention of this Commission under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine, with no order as to cost.