Judgment:
Oral Order: (Per Sri K. Satyanand,Honble Member)
This is an appeal filed by the opposite party against which the District Forum passed an order. Even by the time of admission, the complainant/respondent entered appearance through his advocate and also filed counter obviously in the I.A. for stay. In as much as both sides appeared, the matter was taken up for final adjudication and accordingly heard the counsel on both sides.
The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:
Attracted by the real estate project floated by the appellant, the complainant claimed to have invested an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and odd towards the price of the plot undertaken to be developed by the appellant. Though the complainant had paid the entire amount, the appellant procrastinated to take the deal to its logical conclusion by executing a registered sale deed in respect of the plot in favour of the complainant. During the course of the demands by the complainant evoking reaction of indifference, a lot of correspondence transpired between the parties and ultimately the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.
The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party on several grounds. It was firstly resisted that the complainant would hardly answer the description of a âconsumer in as much as the appellant can by no means be characterized as service provider on any count. The other ground urged appears to be that the sale agreement that laid foundation for the cause of action between the complainant and the appellant was never registered and therefore it cannot be received in evidence to adjudicate the rights of the complainant and it was finally urged that there yielded several proceedings as by product and without waiting the out come of those proceedings, the complainant rushed tot he District Forum and therefore his complaint was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. He did not however contest the factum of having received the amount claimed by way of consideration in the deal.
In support of his case, the complainant filed his own affidavit as also documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A13. Opposite party on the other hand though did not file an affidavit nevertheless filed documentary evidence marked as Exs.B1 to B18.
On a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the District Forum brushed aside the first two questions holding that when the agreement was admittedly cancelled by the appellant himself by tendering the refund of the amount paid by him through a cheque which ultimately came to be bounced, the appellant was under an inviolable obligation to return the money that he received from the complainant. The District Forum therefore passed an order in those terms.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party filed the present appeal reiterating the ground that the complainant would not come under the definition of âconsumer and the view taken by the District Forum in that regard was only on the basis of mis application of the decision rendered by Honble Supreme Court. He also commented that the reliance placed on the agreement of sale was illegal for the reasons that it did not go through the requirements as contemplated by the Registration Act and Stamps Act and therefore inadmissible in a judicial proceedings. The grounds of appeal faulted with the omission of framing an issue by the Forum in regard to the cancellation of the Agreement as evidenced by Ex.A8. Ultimately it was commented that the District Forum erred in coming to a conclusion that there was deficiency in service. The appellant also expressed that it was willing to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the plot after receipt of the entire sale consideration and faulted with the complainant that the complainant failed to pay the entire sale consideration to get the sale deed registered. In other words, it relied upon the circumstance that there was a certain kind of default on the part of the complainant entailing disentitlement to claim refund of the part sale consideration paid.
Heard both sides.
The point that arise for consideration is whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?
The District Forum very extensively dealt with all the points urged and passed a lengthy order sorting out the various issues but strictly speaking the controversy lies within a very narrow arena. The first and foremost point that was heavily relied upon by the appellant relates to incompetence on the part of the complainant to maintain this complaint especially on the ground that the relationship between the complainant and the appellant could hardly be characterized as that of the âconsumer and the âservice provider in as much as there was no element of service fastening to the pursuit undertaken by the opposite party. At this juncture, we may straight away say that there is no force in this submission as there is a catena of decisions holding that the person who develops land to get cleared out for house site and sell the house sites by adding value for profit would very much come under the description of âservice provider as in the final product of house sites not only the original land as such but also the toil and effort of the developer would be the inputs and the product that would be turned out in such a venture would be a house site and in that view of the matter, a person aspiring to acquire such a house site would undoubtedly come within the purview of the definition of âconsumer and the person or the entity which offers such service would correspondingly come under the definition of âservice provider and this relationship marks a jural relationship, the relationship required for motivation of this Act and any dispute arising from out of it would invariably be a âconsumer dispute that falls within the jurisdiction of consumer fora contemplated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The next point that was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the complainant was that the District Forum was wrong in relying upon the basic document, the sale agreement, when it was not sanctified as per the procedure and the requirements contemplated by the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. This argument is utterly untenable for the reason that in the adjudication relating to deficiency in service, an agreement of sale is not be all and end all. Even otherwise, the pleadings urged on either side make it abundantly clear or advert to the essential terms of the agreement and this kind of collateral usage of the agreement which may along side serve the purpose of bringing out the truth in the transaction would not come under the teeth of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. In other words, the sale agreement in a case like this serves the collateral purpose as in fact in the scheme of things under this Act, such a document is relegated merely to such a status. Now coming to the question of reception of the sale agreement in the evidence, the objection that it was not registered has no legs to stand as after all the adjudication of the consumer disputes is solely depending upon the proper application of principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience and the jural relationship is capable of being culled out not only from agreements but also other collateral documents as receipts passed by one side to the other as also the project profiles that would be extensively circulated and advertised and all other such supportive documents. So it is rather impertinent for the appellant to exaggerate the importance of registration of the sale agreement as after all the sale agreement is not the sole material to identify the rights of a parties in a matter like this. As the avenues for getting at true facts that furnish material for proper adjudication are multifarious signified by various documents tendered by both sides.
It is abundantly clear as rightly observed by the District Forum that the cancellation of the agreement and the deal was the appellants own making as manifest from Ex.A8. This fact is corroborated by the circumstances that the appellant/opposite party reconciled himself to the position of returning of the amount received by issuing a cheque which is shown through unimpeachable evidence that it was got bounced. So the debt is crystallized and in fact the order of the District Forum merely gave relief in terms of the pre existent obligation on the part of the appellant. The appellant cannot therefore repudiate his own obligation that was established beyond doubt and in this appeal he made an endeavour to assail even that already settled position. In this view of the matter, we do not think that the finding of the District Forum in this regard holding that the appellant has to return the amount that he received in the deal to the complainant suffers from any infirmity. The respondent/complainant made a feeble attempt to revert to the position of seeking the registration of the sale deed in his favour in respect of the property in question but it is too late in the day and in fact he never asked for such a thing in the complaint itself. What all he asked he got it in the order of the District Forum which we find deserving to be upheld. Thus we do not see any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. In other words, we do not see any grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs in a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The order of the District Forum is confirmed and the appellant is granted six weeks time for compliance.