PER SHRI.S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal is an exception to the judgment and order dated 3/2/2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in CC No. 595/09 partly allowing the complaint and directing the appellant/Opponent to execute sale-deed pertaining to the plot No.143 from Kh.No.34/1 of village Khairi Khurd T.& D. Nagpur by receiving back the cheque of Rs.75,050/- which was given by the appellant to the Respondent and, further to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as cost of proceeding etc.
Brief facts giving rise to this matter are that the appellant/Opponent who is a developer had floated a scheme to sell plots and to alinate said plots on receiving price of the plots or to re purchase it after 3 years etc. On 11.11.2006 Respondent/complainant Shri.Lakshmikant Hatgadkar entered into an agreement and agreed to purchase plot No.143 out of Kh.No.34/1 for a consideration of Rs.37,525/-. The appellant developer received the amount of price of the plot by cheque from the complainant and executed the agreement. However, on the same day, the appellant got executed another agreement from the complainant to repurchase the same plot for double price i.e. 75,050/- and issued post dated cheque of the same amount. According to the complainant, option was given to him either to purchase the plot or receive double amount after 3 years. The, complainant was ready and willing to purchase the plot and, therefore, he contacted the appellant builder in the month of July,09 and shown willingness to get the sale-deed of the plot executed by returning the cheque for Rs.75,050/-. But the appellant refused to do so and demanded excess amount of Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.
On hearing both the sides and considering the documents i.e. agreements produced on record, the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur partly allowed the complaint directing the appellant/opponent to execute the sale-deed of the plot in favour of the complainant and receive back the post dated cheque of Rs. 75050/-.
Feeling aggrieved by the same judgment and order, the Opponent Developer filed this appeal.
In response to the notice for hearing before admission, the complainant/Respondent appeared and resisted the appeal.
We heard Shri.R.T.Pal for the appellant and Respondent Laxmicant in person. So also, we perused the copies of complaint/impugned judgment and order, copies of both the agreements dated 11/11/2006.
Mr.Pal, Advocate for the appellant submitted that there was scheme launched by the appellant to sell the plots by entering into agreement with the willing purchasers, and, further to pay double amount of the price after 3 years if the purchaser is not willing to purchase the plot etc. according to the scheme. On the same day, the complainant executed agreement to receive back double amount of price of plot of Rs.37,525/- from the appellant and the appellant issued post dated cheque of double amount i.e. Rs.75050/- to the complainant. But he could not explain as to how such transaction is legal when the appellant/opponent received the amount of price of the plot from the complainant and utilized the same for 3 years. It was necessary for the appellant to execute the sale-deed of the plot in favour of the complainant/Respondent when he was ready. When the option was given, it was the choice of the complainant and not the choice of the developer/appellant. Moreover, issuing such post dated cheque for utilizing money of the plot purchasers for 3 years, can not be said to be valid and legal and such scheme can not be legalized though the willing purchaser accepted that scheme. Hence considering all these facts, the District Consumer Forum has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order directing the opponent/appellant to execute the sale-deed of the plot as per agreement. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order. Hence no interference is warranted.
In the result, the appeal is being devoid of any merit is liable to be summarily rejected. Hence the following order.
ORDER
Appeal is rejected summarily.
No order as to costs.
Delivered on 21/09/2011
