RAPTI HOUSING AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD. vs SITA AGARWAL

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.7.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gorakhpur in Complaint Case No. 20/1993.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant opened a Saving Account on 10.10.1987 for a period of five years. A sum of Rs. 20/- per day was to be deposited in the same account. THE complainant could deposit a sum of Rs. 14,585/- on which a sum of Rs. 6,308/- was due as interest. After the maturity the complainant was given on 18.12.1992 a sum of Rs. 17,893/-. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- was deducted from his account. THE complainant has prayed for rest of the amount along with interest. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the complainant had to deposit Rs. 20/- per day but the complainant did not deposit the entire amount according to the terms of the contract, hence a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was rightly deducted from his account.

The parties led evidence before the learned District Forum, who after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party, hence it directed for payment of Rs. 2,000/- along with cost of Rs. 200/-.

AGGRIEVED against this order the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum. When the case was called none was present in spite of service of notice to the parties of the date fixed.

A perusal of the file will go to show that the complainant had to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in his account in five years period @ Rs. 20/- per day but even according to the own allegation of the complainant, a sum of Rs. 14,585/- was only deposited. According to the contract of the parties if the entire amount is not deposited then 10% deduction is to be made from the amount which was to be deposited and rest of the amount is to be refunded. This was the term on which the deposit was made by the complainant. The learned District Forum has held that this term of the agreement is not fair, hence it allowed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to the complainant instead of the entire amount which was demanded by the complainant. In the present case, the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Bareilly Development Authority & Anr. v. Ajay Pal Singh & Ors., AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1076, in which it was held that the rights of parties inter se are governed by terms of the contract and not by any other constitutional provisions. In the present case, there was an agreement between the parties when a deposit was made. The terms on which the deposit shall be made was made clear and the payment which was to be made on the maturity was also made clear. It was indicated in the agreement that if the entire amount is not paid as mentioned in the agreement then a deduction of 10% shall be made from the total amount which was to be deposited. In the present case a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was to be deposited. 10% of this amount comes to Rs. 3,000/-. The appellant has, therefore, deducted a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from the amounts which were deposited by the complainant. In our opinion, this amount which was deducted by the appellant was in terms of the agreement. When the parties have entered into an agreement and settled the terms of the contract then they are bound by such contract. The terms of the contract can only be changed by mutual consent of the parties. Therefore, in this case, we find that the learned District Forum was not justified in granting the relief to the complainant by ordering for payment of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. As the terms of the contract had been violated the appellant was justified in deducting the amount which it has done. The complainant cannot take any advantage after violating the contract. In view of the above findings, the appeal is liable to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the District Forum are set aside and complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed.