NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1752/2010

SUMANLATA SHUKLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOMTESH FARMS & RESORTS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MS. ALKA AGRAWAL

29 Sep 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 1752 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 11/02/2010 in Appeal No. 1295/2009 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)

1. SUMANLATA SHUKLA Resident of Shukla Niketan Narsingh Road, Byawara Rajgarh Madhya Pradesh	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. GOMTESH FARMS & RESORTS PVT. LTD. Through Director Manmohan Chandak, S/o. Shanti Chand Mahajan, Resident of Main Market Byawara Rajgarh Madhya Pradesh	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

MS. ALKA AGRAWAL

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 29 Sep 2010

ORDER

The District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant with direction to the respondent/opposite party to provide all the facilities to the petitioner as per the scheme and in case those facilities are not provided within four months of the order, the petitioner will execute sale-deed in favour of the respondent at the expenses of the latter -2- and sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- will be refunded alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of sale to the petitioner. Amount of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded by way of compensation in addition to cost of Rs.1000/- in favour of the petitioner. Dissatisfied with Forum order the petitioner filed appeal which has been disposed of in terms of the order dated 11.2.2010, under challenge, by the State Commission relegating the parties to Civil Court for deciding the issue as to the amount paid by the petitioner to the respondent. Petitioner alleges that amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was paid towards sale consideration in addition to amount of Rs.20,000/- towards registration charges by her to the respondent. On the contrary, the respondent alleges that only amount of Rs.65,000/- was paid. Issue as to how much amount was actually paid and/or received could be decided by the State Commission on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties before the District Forum. There was no occasion for the State Commission to have relegated the parties to Civil Court to decide the said issue. Commission order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and case remanded to the State Commission for appeal being decided afresh on merit. -3- Accordingly, while allowing revision, aforesaid order dated 11.2.2010 is set aside and case is remanded to the State Commission for appeal being decided on merit. It will be open to the parties to raise all contentions which may be legally permissible to take by them. Parties will appear before the State Commission for direction on 28.10.2010.

......................J

K.S. GUPTA

PRESIDING MEMBER