O R D E R (ORAL) In the second round of litigation, these four Revision Petitions have been filed by a Real Estate Developer, namely, Natural Estates and its partners, questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 29.3.2017 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri at Raipur (for short ‘State Commission’) in Appeals No.14/194, 14/195, 14/304 and 14/305. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has affirmed the orders dated 17.2.2014 and 15.4.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint Cases No.64/12, 11/11, 54/12 and 55/12, and has thus, dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Petitioners against the said orders. In the first place, while allowing the Complaints filed by Respondents herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in not delivering possession of the residential plots, admeasuring 1500 sq.ft., despite having received almost 60% of the total sale consideration in respect of the plots from them, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to allot the plots booked by them within 15 days of its order and pay compensation ranging between ₹50,000/- to ₹5,00,000/-. 2. Hence, these Revision Petitions. 3. Except for the difference in the amounts paid by each of the Complainants to the Petitioners and the dates of deposit, the issues sought to be raised in all these cases, being identical, all the Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Further, since the factum of receipt of the amounts mentioned in each of the Complaints, as far back as in the year 1999 and non-delivery of the plots also not being in dispute, for the sake of brevity, we do not propose to make copious reference to other ancillary facts, stated in the Complaints. 4. The short ground on which the orders impugned in these Revision Petitions are challenged is that having themselves defaulted in making deposits of the balance amounts towards the cost of the plots, despite repeated demands by the Petitioners, the Fora below was not justified in holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in not handing over the possession of the plots in question. 5. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and perused the documents on record, we are of the view that all these Revision Petitions are bereft of any merit. On pointed queries as to whether the booking of subject plots in favour of the Complainants, had been cancelled on account of alleged defaults on their part in making payment of the balance amounts stated to have been demanded from them from time to time and when the development of the plots was completed for delivery of possession, learned Counsel candidly admits that no such action was taken by the Petitioners and as a matter of fact, as per his instructions the entire project was shelved. 6. In light of the afore-noted statement by the learned Counsel, when admittedly the plots were never developed, and in fact the project itself was abandoned, it did not lie in the mouth of the Petitioners to go on demanding further amounts from the Complainants, who had already paid almost 60% of the sale consideration. In view of the aforestated factual position, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the concurrent finding of fact by the fora below to the effect that the failure on the part of the Petitioners in not delivering possession of the plots to the Petitioners amounted to deficiency in service on their part. 7. Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly, in limine. |
