ORAL ORDER
Per Shri Justice S. B. Mhase, Hon’ble President
This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Nagpur on 09/09/2010. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 are the heirs of the org. complainant/ Satyanarayan Dubey who has initially filed the complaint. This complaint is allowed and it has been held that there is deficiency in service and the appellant shall execute the conveyance deed in favour of the respondents in respect of plot no. 173. It has been further directed that in case it is not possible for the appellant to execute conveyance deed, the appellant shall pay the price of the said plot as per market rate along with interest @6% p.a. It is also directed that by way of cost `1,000/- be paid and by way of mental agony and harassment `5,000/- be paid. The appellant is a co-operative society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. They were desirous of sale of plot no. 173 admeasuring 216 sq. ft. Said plot was a part of Kh. No. 54/2, P.H.No. 44 of Mouza Somalwada, Ward No. 15. In respect of this plot the Chairman of appellant-society one Mr. Devram Salvikar has executed agreement on 25/08/1997 and org. complainant/ Satyanarayan Dubey had paid 34,875/- by way of full consideration of said plot and therefore, said plot ought to have been transferred in the name of Satyanarayan Dubey and if it was not transferred in his name lifetime then after his death, it should have been transferred in the name of his heirs. However, the appellant society has not executed the said conveyance and therefore, complaint has been filed.
The grievance of the appellant appears to be that they do not possess any record in respect of membership of said Satyanarayan Dubey and it is further contention of the appellant that amount of membership has not been paid by the org. complainant. The appellant does not possess any document with them which shows that Satyanarayan Dubey is the original purchaser of the plot and therefore, refused to execute document of conveyance as per agreement dated 25/08/1997. The agreement shows that full consideration of the plot has been paid. The agreement specifically states that Satyanarayan Dubey was/is member of the said society. Under these circumstances, the contention of the appellant that appellant does not possess any documents is not tenable in law. It is not disputed that the person who has executed the said agreement was Chairman of the society and the document has been executed by him. Therefore, when the document shows a relationship with the appellant-society and the respondent was a member of the said society, the society was under obligation to convey the property in his favour and such services cannot be withheld by the society which a member is entitled to get. Therefore, on merit we do not find there is any substance in the appeal. The appeal deserves to be rejected.
Though the ground of limitation has not been raised in the written version, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant states that he has raised ground of limitation orally and District Consumer Redressal Forum has not considered the same. Let it be as it is. We are considering it. We have gone through the agreement dated 25/08/1997 and find that the time of performance has not been specified in the said agreement. An application has been made by Satyanarayan Dubey wherein it has been mentioned in respect of N.A. charges and other charges. However, there is nothing on record that appellant demanded any charges from Satyanarayan Dubey and Satyanarayan Dubey failed to pay or refused to pay it. Therefore, non fulfillment of any condition will give not be a cause of action. The complainant has only claimed execution of conveyance. For execution of conveyance there is no time specified. On the contrary, clause no. 3-4 of the agreement states that, “ 3. That the allottee would be given possession to the date of Sale Deed. 4. That the allottee shall be entitled to get a Registered Sale Deed of the Plot allotted to him on fulfilling the conditions shown above.” And there is no breach of any of the condition stated in the said agreement and therefore, the respondent is entitled to get the conveyance. Since the time is not specified for performance of contract, the time will commence from the date of refusal of contract. Therefore, notice was given by the respondent and he replied to said notice in 2009 that contract was refused. Thus, we find that complaint is filed within limitation. Ultimately, what we find that District Consumer Redressal Forum has rightly allowed by the complaint. No interference is called. Hence we pass the following order:-
:- ORDER-:
1. Appeal stands rejected.
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Dictated on dais.
4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules.
