NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/584/2005

PARIS GRIH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. ASHA SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

DEVASHISH BHARUKA

19 Oct 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 01 Mar 2005

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/584/2005
(Against the Order dated 21/10/2004 in Appeal No. 351/2003 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. PARIS GRIH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITILALITA NAGAR A-1, KOLAR ROAD BHOPAL M.P ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. SMT. ASHA SINGHF-110/44, SHIVAJI NAGAR BHOPAL M.P ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 19 Oct 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against opposite party No.1 – Builders & Developers Associates and the petitioner herein who was opposite party No.2.

          The dispute involved between the parties is that the complainant/respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.53,050/- with the petitioner but the petitioner failed to allot the plot to her. 

 

-2-

          District Forum vide its order dated 09.1.2003 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the amount along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment.  Rs.500/- were awarded as costs.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission came to the conclusion that the opposite parties No.1 & 2 (OP-2 is the petitioner herein) has received the amount of Rs.53,050/- from the respondent for allotment of plot.   For coming to this conclusion, the State Commission has recorded the following finding.

          “However, the receipts of payment, leave no manner of doubt that both these opposite parties were acting in collaboration with each other and had received the said amount of Rs.53,050/- from the respondent for allotment of plot.  It is significant to note that although four receipts are passed by the appellant Society and the remaining by Builders and Developers Associates, but, in all these receipts Ledger Folio No.M2/8 is the same.  This again shows that the entire amount was deposited in one account operated jointly by both the opposite parties.  The appellant has not produced documents of its Association or the Bank account so as to establish its different identity and the connection if any with the said other opposite party.”

 

            We have examined the copy of the receipts issued by the petitioner as well as the Builders & Developers Associates.  The Ledger Folio No. M-2/8 is the same in all the receipts.  There is no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.  No costs.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER