PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- to the Opposite Party/Respondent for purchase of land in the name of his son Sh. Sanjay Singh Karki. According to the complainant, the opposite party is a property dealer and he had agreed to sell the property which did not even belong to him and ultimately the property which was agreed to be sold, was transferred by the opposite party to some other person. The opposite party failed to return the said amount of Rs. 3,40,000/-. As a result, the complainant approached the District Forum for direction to the opposite party to pay the said amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- with interest and costs. The District Forum, on perusal of the record, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay the said amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- with 6% simple interest per annum. In addition, the opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant as cost of the petition. This order was challenged by the opposite party by filing an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held that the complainant had no right to file consumer complaint since the land was agreed to be sold to Sh. Sanjay Singh Kakri who had not filed the complaint. In addition the State Commission held that it was not clearly proved from the documentary evidence that the opposite party/appellant was a property dealer. The State Commission also took into account that the agreement in question was not a registered agreement. Therefore, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. This order is subject matter of challenge in revision by the complainant. We have heard the Counsel appearing on both sides. Admittedly a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party for purchase of land in the name of son Sh. Sanjay Singh Kakri. Since the amount was paid by the complainant and the land was not ultimately transferred, he is entitled to file the complaint before the District Forum and the State Commission erred in coming to the conclusion that the complainant could not file consumer complaint. From the record, it stands proved that the opposite party was not the owner of the property agreed to be sold to the complainant and ultimately the said property was sold by the opposite party to some another person. These facts establish beyond any doubt that the opposite party was a property dealer. The District Forum had, therefore, rightly placed reliance on the judgment of this Commission in Sunder Kashyap Vs N. Palta; II (1995) CPJ 223 (NC). In fact, the entire matter was examined by the District Forum in the right perspective and the conclusions arrived at by the District Forum are well founded and are based on material on record. The State Commission erred in upsetting the order of the District Forum on the basis of conclusions drawn by it, which are not sustainable. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The order of the State Commission is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. Cost of revision shall be borne by the opposite party-respondent which are fixed at Rs.5,000/- . The revision is allowed in aforesaid terms. |
