HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 02 Feb 2010
ORDER
Factual matrix are that respondent No. 1, having enrolled himself as a Member of Maharashtra Mandal Samithi, made deposit of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as security deposit with Samiti for purchase of a house for consideration of Rs. 2,08,600/-. Later, Samiti merged with respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 secured finance of Rs. 80,000/- from petitioner Sangh, repayment of which was to be made through respondent no. 2. Since despite payment of Rs. 1,05,497/- made by respondent No. 1, a notice was issued by petitioner raising further demand for Rs. 55,874/- on the basis of entries made in Ledger and no Deed of Conveyance was executed by respondent No. 2, on account of non-issuance of No Objection Certificate by petitioner Awas Sangh, a complaint came to be filed with District Forum holding deficiency on part of petitioner and respondent No. 2. Complaint was resisted by petitioner and also respondent No. 2 refuting accusations attributed to them. District Forum, however, on appraisal of issue which came for consideration, under mistaken notion that the matter required detailed evidence to be led in the proceeding, which was not feasible in summary proceeding before consumer for a, while dismissing complaint, directed respondent No. 1 to take recourse to civil court proceeding. Finding of District Forum was, however, questioned by respondent No. 1 and State Commission having held petitioner and respondent No. 2 liable, while accepting complaint, recorded finding of deficiency on part of petitioner Awas Sangh and respondent No. 2 and directed petitioner Awas Sangh to issue No Objection Certificate to respondent No. 1 and, in turn, respondent No. 2 was to execute registered Sale Deed in favour of respondent No. 1. Both, petitioner and respondent No. 2 were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to respondent No. 1 and also litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Both petitioner and respondent No. 2 had been disowning their liability on somewhat different pretexts, as while respondent No. 1, as has been noticed earlier, took refuge for not executing Deed of Conveyance for non-issuance of No Objection Certificate by petitioner, petitioner had been disowning its liability for non-issuance of No Objection Certificate on pretext that all 28 installments paid by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 had not been remitted to them. State Commission having appreciated entire gamut of issue, returned finding that payments made by respondent No. 1 to petitioner and respondent No. 2 were evidenced by receipts thereof, copies of which have been put on record and also there being an affidavit of respondent No. 1, and that apart, since respondent No. 2 was acting as an agent on behalf of petitioner for collecting payments made by respondent No. 1, petitioner cannot disown liability for acts of their agent. Sheer ignorance exhibited by petitioner for payments received by respondent No. 2 which was acting as their agent on their behalf, cannot absolve them of their liability, holding that payments made by respondent No. 1 could not be verified, as after dissolution of Board, records were with Sri. J.P. Mishra, an officer of Co-operative Department. Respondent No. 2, later, in its letter dated 15.04.1993 addressed to respondent No. 1, informed respondent No. 1 that it was acting as an agent for collection of amount on behalf of petitioner. As part of amount collected by respondent No. 2 had not been remitted to petitioner and it retained the same with it, respondent No. 1 was not to be blamed, who had incurred liability of additional interest. Even as legal fiction, payments made to respondent No. 2 who was acting as an agent on behalf of petitioner would amount to proper and due payment as non-remittance of part of amount by respondent No. 2 to petitioner was an inter se dispute between petitioner and respondent No. 2 and so far as respondent No. 1 was concerned, since he had liquidated loan amount taken by him, he was entitled for issuance of No Objection Certificate by respondent No. 2 and execution of Deed of Conveyance by petitioner. Finding returned by State Commission holding petitioner and respondent No. 2 liable for deficiency in service on their part, was based on meticulous appreciation of issues, which did not require interference. Revision petition in the circumstances, being devoid of merit, is dismissed with no order as to cost.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER ......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
