PER SHRI S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 22/7/2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur partly allowing the complaint No. 34/11.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant/Ori.Opponent is a builder and developer of the lands. On 10/2/2009 Respondent/complainant Booked a plot with the appellant for a consideration of Rs.658754/- and on the same day he paid Rs.1000/- to the appellant as booking amount and it was agreed to pay the balance amount by instalments. Accordingly an agreement in writing was executed by the parties. As per the agreement, Respondent paid total amount of Rs.6,58,754/- to the appellant till 25/2/2010 and was ready to pay the balance amount, but, according to the complainant, the appellant/opponent failed to execute the sale-deed. Therefore, by notice dated 17/1/2011, the complainant asked the opponent to execute the sale deed, but the appellant shown his inability to execute the sale-deed as the N.A. and layout was not approved. Moreover, there was a dispute with the land owner also. Therefore, the complainant/Respondent filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.
3. On hearing both the sides and considering the agreement, the District Consumer Forum, vide impugned judgment dated 22/7/2011 partly allowed the complaint directing the appellant/opponent to execute the sale-deed within 30 days by getting the NA and lay out sanctioned or in the alternative, to repay the amount of Rs.6,59,054/-with interest @ 12% p.a. till the date of payment.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order, Original Opponent has preferred this appeal.
5. We heard Shri. M.S. Potdukhe, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the copy of impugned judgment as well as the copies of the complaint, written statement, rejoinder etc. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is ready to execute the sale-deed as per agreement but it will take some time as the government has issued ban over sanctioning of layout and Non Agricultural of the land etc. But he could not explain as to how the appellant will be in a position to get the lay out plan and N.A. sanctioned within any specific period, when the government has already issued a ban. Therefore, this commission suggested him to refund the amount as alternative relief/choice given by the District Consumer Forum, but according to the learned counsel for the appellant, though the appellant is ready to repay the amount, it will also take some time. However, he could not explain as to why time is required for repayment of amount when undisputedly the appellant has received the amount from the Respondent. In our view, when the government issued a ban over sanction of N.A. and sanction of layout, nobody can assure about getting the lay out and N.A. sanctioned in the near future. Therefore, the submission of the appellant that he is ready to execute the sale-deed as per agreement can not be considered. When the appellant has received the amount from the Respondent/complainant, he has to repay the amount as directed by the District Consumer Forum. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be summarily dismissed.
6. Hence the following order…
ORDER
1.The appeal is summarily dismissed.
2.No order as to costs.
Delivered on 13/9/11
