Per Justice Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:

 Heard Adv.Mr. Sujeetkumar for  appellant.

          This appeal is directed as against the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli in consumer complaint no.06/2009 decided on 17/07/2010.  The present appellant is original opponent no.2.  The respondent is original complainant.  It appears that respondent/complainant was having Panshop.  However, said Panshop was removed by the org.opponent no.1 and he was assured that in stead he will be given another place.  It is not disputed that present appellant; who is opponent no.2 has given work for construction of small Panshops so as to allot small Panshops to them.  The said Corporation has assured alternative premises within area of Corporation.  After the place was identified by the Town Planning Department so as to allot to the small businessmen, said work was given to the appellant under the said scheme.  Original complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.34,875/- with the present appellant, who is opponent no.2 in the original complaint.  Thereafter, since said small premises was not allotted to the complainant, the complainant has filed the complaint so as to recover the amount with interest.

          It is not disputed that appellant, namely, opponent no.2 in the original complaint has received an amount of Rs.34,875/- from the complainant.  So, the complainant has directly paid the amount to the appellant.  Now, the contention of the appellant is that they have constructed the 68 sites and  they were given to the Corporation and it is the Corporation who has failed to give premises to the complainant/respondent no.1 and therefore, this appellant is not liable to return the money.  It is further being stated that premises were allotted to somebody else by the Corporation and therefore,  Ld.Counsel for the appellant states that he is not aware whether the amount has been recovered from third person or not.  Let the fact be as it is.  If the work of construction of the premises was allotted to the opponent no.2, namely, appellant, the appellant should not have accepted the amount of Rs.34,875/- from the original complainant directly.  It should have insisted for the payment of said premises from the Corporation.  But instead the appellant has dealt with the complainant directly and accepted the amount and when the premises were to be handed over, instead of handing it over the complainant, they were handed over to the Corporation and Corporation ultimately failed to hand over to the complainant.  Under these circumstances, the appellant being developer and builder of these premises and having dealing with the complainant was under obligation to return the amount to the complainant.  Recovery of the amount of 68 premises among which the complainant was supposed to get a Panshop is matter between the opponents inter se.  The complainant has nothing to do with this.  Since the complainant was not provided with services of giving possession of the premises after the construction, the appellant is under obligation to return the money and therefore, the complaint has been filed. 

          What we find that order has been rightly passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.  No interference is called for.  It is clarified that if after return of amount, it is found by the appellant  that he is short of receipt of payment in respect of one shop, they may delay with the Corporation separately for the same but in any circumstances, the amount of complainant must be returned with interest.  With this direction the appeal stands disposed of.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                                          :-ORDER-:

1.                 Appeal stands rejected.

2.                 No order as to costs

3.                 Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules.