1.      Heard Mr. Hari Kishan, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents. 

2.      Above appeal has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 26.03.2021, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed as not maintainable.

3.      The office has submitted report that there is a delay of 4 days in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4.      Raj Kumar Jain has filed consumer complaint No.36 of 2018 with the State Commission for directing the opposite parties to (1) handover possession and execute the sale deed of Flat No.901 at Eden Height or refund the amount of Rs.2327552/- deposited by the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. till 31.12.2013, which comes to total amount of Rs.3552520/- and further interest on Rs.3552520/- from 01.04.2014 to 30.04.2016, which comes to Rs.5243310/-; from 01.05.2016 to 01.11.2017 whereby total amount comes to Rs.6659003/-; and further interest @ 18% on Rs.6659003/- till the date of payment; (2) Rs.10/- lacs towards physical and mental harassment; (3) Rs.3/- lacs as compensation and Rs.51000/- towards legal expenses; and (4) any other order which this Commission deems in favour of the complainant.

5.      The complainant stated that the opposite parties are builders and developers. One Ram Avtar Puniya purchased flat No.901 from the opposite parties, vide agreement to sell dated 18.06.2011. On 24.08.2013, the complainant purchased the said flat No.901 from Ram Avtar Punia, with the permission of the opposite parties. The complainant and Ram Avtar Punia also sent the complete documents to the opposite parties on 28.09.2013, including the sale agreement dated 24.08.2013. Opposite party No.2, vide notice dated 14.01.2014 informed the complainant that the construction of flat No.901 cannot be done because necessary approval has not been granted by the concerned authorities. It was also informed that whenever the construction will be done, the complainant will be informed of the same otherwise they will refund the amount with interest @ 18% p.a. In this regard, opposite party No.2 executed an agreement dated 14.01.2014 with the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant kept on chasing the opposite parties but no satisfactory reply was given to the complainant. Ultimately he sent a legal notice dated 30.03.2016 seeking status of the construction and possession of the flat or refund the amount of Rs.2327552/- with interest @ 18% p.a. The opposite parties did not reply to the legal notice. The complainant filed criminal complaint against the opposite party-2 under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur. The complainant also filed consumer complaint with the State Commission on 23.03.2016.

6.      Opposite party-2 contested the complaint by filing the written version on 18.02.2019 stating that the complainant has concealed the material fact from this Commission that he was power of attorney holder of opposite party-2 from 15.06.2007 to 14.03.2017. The complainant has misused the power of attorney and defrauded Rs.40-50 lacs from opposite party-2. When the forgery of the complainant came to the knowledge of opposite party-2, she cancelled the power of attorney on 15.03.2007. The complainant also did forged bookings of some flats. The complainant also got the signatures of opposite party-2 by fraud and disbelieve on the agreement to sell dated 18.06.2011. In fact, opposite party-2 did not sell any flat to Ram Avtar Puniya. Therefore, there is no question of purchasing the flat No.901 by complainant from Ram Avtar Puniya. In this regard, OP-2 also lodged FIR No.392/2017 against the complainant and his wife in the police station Janakpuri, New Delhi and the complainant was arrested on 06.11.2017 and remained in judicial custody upto 22.02.2018. Opposite party-2 cancelled all forged documents executed by the complainant on her behalf. It was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.      State Commission, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 26.03.2021, held that the complaint cannot be decided under the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant should present his case before the Civil Court and dismissed the complaint as not maintainable.

8.      We have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. The relation of the consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite parties rests on the agreement to sell between OP-2 and Ram Avtar Puniya, dated 18.06.2011 as well as agreement to sell dated 24.08.2013 whereby Ram Avtar Punia sold the flat to the complainant. The entire case of the complainant rests on the truthfulness of the above documents. On the other hand, it is the case of the opposite parties that they have not sold the flat either to Ram Avtar Puniya or to the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant being the power of attorney of OP-2 from 15.06.2007 to 14.03.2017 made forged bookings of some flats and also got signatures of OP-2 by fraud and disbelieve on the agreement to sell dated 18.06.2011. The fact that OP-2 lodged an FIR against the complainant and his wife and they remained in judicial custody from 06.11.2008 to 22.02.2008, has not been denied by the complainant. The allegations made by OP-2 are serious in nature and are subject matter of criminal proceedings which are already going on. Further, the Consumer Commission in summary proceedings cannot decide the veracity of the documents as it would require a complete trial which can be done by a Civil Court. In order to test bonafide of the appellant, we directed the appellant vide order dated 19.10.2023 to file the proof of payment made either by Ram Avtar Punia or by the appellant to M/s Aishwarya Construction or to M/s Geeta Constyruction before 24.08.2013 but the appellant could not give any evidence in this respect. The State Commission has dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. We find no reason to disagree with the findings of the State Commission so as to interfere in the impugned order in the appellate jurisdiction and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

In view of aforesaid discussions, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant/complainant to seek redressal of his grievance before the appropriate forum.