This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 15.9.2014 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and the petitioners were directed to refund a sum of Rs.7 lakhs to the complainant along with interest @ 9%  p.a. Since there is a delay of 215 days in filing the revision petition, I.A. No 5487 of 2015 seeking condonation of the said delay has been filed. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition has been opposed by the respondent/complainant.

2.       I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3.       The application dated 14.3.2016 to the extent it explains the delay in filing the revision petition, reads as under:-

“2. That it is submitted that at the time of filing of C.C. No.93 of 2010, the office of Software Engineers Employees Housing & Welfare Association situated at Flat No.ANI/06/02, Block-37, Raintree Park, Malaysian Township, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Subsequently the office of Software Engineers Employees Housing & Welfare Association has been shifted to Flat No.102, Block-B-43, S.B.R.T (F), Raintree Park, near “D” Mart, Malaysian Township, Kukatpally, Hyderabad from 14.8.2012.

3. That the then Secretary A. Sreenivas Reddy has filed counter affidavit and chief affidavit in C.C. No.93 of 2010 before the learned District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District by mentioning his residential address i.e. 1A-403, SMR Vinay Acropolis, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District. Further, that the then Secretary A. Sreenivas Reddy has filed counter in I.A. No.2475 of 2012 in F.A.S.R. No.5918 of 2012 before the Hon’ble State Commission. In the said counter affidavit, the Secretary has mentioned his residential address i.e. 1A-403, SMR Vinay Acropolis, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District.

4. That the complainant Mr. Srinivas Pudu also aware about the shifting of office of the petitioner herein from old address to new address.

5. That it is most respectfully submitted that it transpires from a bare perusal of the impugned order and other orders passed by the Hon’ble State Commission that the counsel for the petitioners herein was not aware about the listing of the matter and also about the pronouncement of the impugned order on 15.9.2014. That the petitioners were not aware about the impugned order and since the counsel of the petitioners also did not know about the pronouncement of the same, it was not conveyed to the petitioners as well. True copies of the orders dated 7.7.2014, 15.7.2014, 18.7.2014, 12.9.2014 and 15.9.2014 passed by the Hon’ble A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad in F.A. No.51 of 2013 are annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-1 (COLLY).

6. It is submitted that it appears that the State Commission has sent the order copy to old address of Software Engineers Employees Housing & Welfare Association. The State Commission did not send the copy of the order to the address mentioned in the counter affidavit of the then Secretary or the new address of Association.

7. It is submitted that by the time of passing of the order, the Society has elected a new executive committee. Accordingly new Secretary was elected by name Uday Kumar Chava.

8. It is submitted that the Association came to know about the passing of order by State Commission on 17.5.2015, when one Manas, who is one of the Member and the owner of the old Address of Association office, has sent email to the then Secretary. It is further submitted that after passing of the impugned order dated 15.9.2014, no certified copy was ever received by the petitioners from the Hon’ble State Commission as per the procedure.

9. It is submitted that immediately he informed the present secretary and present secretary has contacted his counsel and requested him to get the order copy from the State Commission. To the instructions of Secretary, his counsel filed copy application on 21.5.2015 and the copy of order was delivered on 25.5.2015.

10.That after the issuance of the certified copy of the impugned order on the aforesaid date, the petitioners came to know about the exact directions issued by the Hon’ble State Commission. Thereafter, the petitioners sought the advice of their local counsel regarding further course of legal action and to avail appropriate legal remedy. The counsel of the petitioners informed them that the legal remedy of filing a revision petition before this Hon’ble Commission could be availed by the petitioners.

11.That thereafter the present Secretary has contacted this counsel for preferring revision petition against the orders of State Commission in the month of June, 2015. By that time, the Court was on summer vacation. Therefore, he could not prefer the revision petition immediately.

12.That thereafter during the month of July, 2015, the Petitioners herein sent the documents to the Advocate at New Delhi for drafting and filing the revision petition before this Hon’ble Commission. That after receiving the said relevant documents, the Advocate drafted the revision petition and sent the same to the petitioners for their perusal along with some clarifications that were required on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that the bank statement sent by the petitioners to the counsel was dim and hence, a clear statement was required. Therefore, the petitioners arranged a new statement and sent to the counsel.

13.That after going through the draft petition, the petitioners sent the same to the Advocate along with all the clarifications that were required on their behalf and accordingly the revision petition was finalized by the Advocate. As such there is a delay in filing the present revision petition before this Hon’ble Commission which is neither intentional nor wanton.

14.It is submitted that the Society is managed by people, who are software engineers and employed full time. The work do for the society is totally voluntary. The society focus on completing the construction of housing project for its members. This activity consumes considerable amount of time.”

It is thus evident that since the petitioners Society had changed its office, the copy of the impugned order, sent to it by the State Commission was not received by the petitioners. The copy of the impugned order came to be received by them on 25.5.2015. The prescribed period of limitation computed from 25.5.2015 expired on 23.8.2015. Therefore, if computed from the date on which the copy of the order was received, there is no delay in filing the revision petition. The applications stands dispose of accordingly.

R.P. No.2092 of 2015

4.       The case of the complainant is that he had booked a residential villa with the petitioner in a housing project which the petitioner was seeking to develop by engaging builders, in Hyderabad and paid a total sum of Rs.7 lakhs by way of three cheques. One of Rs.1,50,000/- and two of Rs.2,75,000/- each. According to the complainant, the possession was to be delivered by March, 2009, but the petitioner failed to honour its contractual obligation. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum seeking refund of the amount of Rs.7 lakhs alleged to have been paid to the petitioner along with interest @ 24% p.a. The compliant was resisted by the petitioner on several grounds including that it had received only Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant and that it had never promised to deliver possession by March, 2009.

5.       The main question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the complainant had paid Rs.7 lakhs as is claimed by him or he had paid only Rs.1.5 lakhs as is claimed by the petitioner Society. Admittedly, an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs was paid by the complainant to the petitioner Society by way of account  payee cheque. There is no dispute regarding this payment. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that remaining two payments of Rs.2,75,000/- each were made by way of bearer cheques which were delivered to the then Secretary of the society, namely, A. Sreenivas Reddy. Admittedly, no receipt from the society or from its then Secretary was obtained by the complainant. There is no explanation from the complainant as to why he chose to make payment to the society by way of bearer cheque instead of an account payee cheque. This is more so when he had made the first payment by way of account payee cheque. In my opinion, had the complainant paid Rs.2,75,000/- each to the petitioner on two occasions, either he would have made the said payments by way of account payee cheque or he would at least have obtained receipts of the said alleged payments. No one is likely to make payments by way of bearer cheques without even obtaining a receipt from the recipient. Therefore, in my opinion, the complainant has failed to prove the alleged payment of Rs.5.5 lakhs by way of two bearer cheques.  Consequently, he became entitled to refund of only Rs.1.5 lakhs with interest.

6.       For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner Society to refund a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- only to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date on which the said payment was made. The petitioner society will also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the litigation to the complainant. The revision petition stands disposed of.