RAMCHANDRA SHRINIVASRAO GANGAKHEDKAR vs KAUSALLAYABAI TRIMBAK KATHARVANE

THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Forum, Jalna dated 30.10.1993 passed in Complaint No. 52/93.

WE have heard Mr. K.V. Chitnis, Advocate for the appellant whereas the respondent was absent. It was alleged by the complainant Kausallayabai T. Katharvane that the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 represented by her husband who was the employee of M.S.E.B. and formed the co-operative housing society with a view to provide land to the members of the society for construction of houses. The complainant alleged that the opposite party No. 1 Shri Ramchandra S. Gangakhedkar represented to be Promoter of the housing society and opposite party No. 2 Shri Vijendra Patole represented to be a Treasurer of the said society. The complainant alleged that the opposite party purchased about 10 acres of land from Survey No. 446 of Jalna and developed it into two plots and lay out. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party collected Rs. 3500/- towards betterment charges and Rs. 400, and Rs. 1000/- for membership and other connected purposes from the complainant. The complainant further alleged that complainant was allotted plot No. 81 in the said lay out for construction of house. The complainant alleged that despite the payment for consideration for the development of land and for allotment of developed plot the opposite party neither got the society registered nor placed the complainant in possession of the plot. The complainant further alleged the deficiency in the service of the opposite parties which they promised to render to the complainant on payment of consideration. In the written version the opposite party No. 1 totally denied the receipt of any consideration for rendering the service as alleged. However, the opposite party No. 2 remained absent and was proceeded ex parte.

During the investigation, the complainant placed on record apart from her affidavit, the receipts about the payment of Rs. 1000/- dated 20.2.80, Rs. 3500/- dated 7.12.84, Rs. 236/- dated 2.4.85 and Rs. 400/- dated 20.2.1986. Thus, the complainant has proved her allegations that even after the payment of consideration for rendering the promised service to the opposite parties, they failed to render the necessary services. The District Forum therefore found that the opposite parties were deficient in their promised services and caused loss to the complainant inasmuch as neither hand over possession nor refunded the consideration to the complainant. The District Forum therefore by the impugned order directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs. 5146/- with 12% p.a. interest to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and Rs. 200/- as costs to the complainant.

AFTER hearing the arguments of the learned Advocate, Mr. Chitnis, we are not impressed about the simple denial about the receipt of consideration by the opposite parties. In view of the conclusive proofs of the payment having made by the complainant for rendering the services, the District Forum correctly reached the findings that there was deficiency in the promised services of the opposite parties. Hence, we do not find any infirmities in the impugned order and therefore this appeal is required to be dismissed. ORDER Appeal stands dismissed. The respondents be paid Rs. 200/- as costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed with costs.