Wadepuri, Tal vs Vinayak Niwas Scheme

THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 09.12.2010 in appeal no. 293 of 2009 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, the State Commission). By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the complainant and affirmed the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nanded (in short, the District Forum), the latter having allowed the petitioners complaint partly and directing the opposite party / respondent to pay to the petitioner / complainant Rs.2,500/- with 9% interest thereon from 01.01.1990 till realisation as well as Rs.4,000/- by way of compensation for mental harassment and Rs.100/- towards costs.

BRIEFLY, the facts are that the petitioner / complainant participated in a housing Scheme floated by the promoter / developer of the respondent / opposite party way back in 1990. The Scheme required an applicant to register with the opposite party by depositing Rs.10 and then pay Rs.250/- per month for 25 months, to be able to get a plot of land measuring 1200 sq. ft. at a place called Waghala. It is undisputed that the petitioner did not pay all the instalments and also kept quiet for a long time till 2007 when he filed a complaint with the local Police Station alleging that the promoter of the Scheme had cheated him. Thereafter, pleading continuance of the cause of action only on the strength of his complaint of 2007 lodged with the Police, the petitioner filed the complaint in question before the District Forum on 18.11.2008. As noted above, the District Forum allowed the complaint partly and issued the above-mentioned directions to the opposite party / respondent. It is the petitioner who went up in appeal against the said order seeking enhancement of the relief granted by the District Forum. Notably, the opposite party did not challenge the order of either the District Forum or the State Commission. Despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear and sent a communication dated 08.07.2010 stating that his petition be decided on merits.

We have gone carefully through the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission. The complainant paid the last monthly instalment sometime in the year 1990. However, he filed the complaint on 18.11.2008. By some rather tortuous logic, the District Forum held that the complaint was not barred by limitation under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and proceeded to pass the order dated 24.08.2009. As the opposite party did not challenge this order before the State Commission, we need merely conclude that the said order became final so far as the opposite party is concerned. Hence, we do not wish to go into the question whether the complaint was at all maintainable in view of the provisions of section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Secondly, having held that the complaint was maintainable, the District Forum gave directions for refund of 50% of the amount of the instalments paid by the petitioner / complainant to the promoter of the Scheme. This was according to the terms and conditions of the Scheme. In addition, the District Forum directed payment of interest on the sum so refundable as well as compensation and cost. The State Commission noticed the facts of the case and concurred with the finding and order of the District Forum. The relief granted to the petitioner / complainant is thus fair and appropriate. In the revision petition, the petitioner has not made out an acceptable case for enhancement of this relief, leave alone directing that he be handed over possession of a plot of land in a Scheme which was closed almost 18 years before the complaint was filed and for which he did not admittedly pay all the due instalments.

IN conclusion, we find no jurisdictional error, material irregularity or legal infirmity in the impugned order of the State Commission, which would warrant our intervention under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.