Judgment:
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President)
This appeal is directed against the order dated 15-2-2013 in C.C.No.511/2009 on the file of District Forum, West Godavari at Eluru whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the opposite party i.e. appellant herein was directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 12-12-2007 till the date of realization and also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.500/-.
The brief facts of the complaint are that the appellant is in the business of real estate, laid plots as per the approved plans in Phase-II of Bhavanipuram in Duggirala Gram Panchayat of Peddavegi Mandal. The respondent who has a dream of living in his own house purchased a plot bearing No.79 admeasuring 200 sq. yds. for a valid consideration in 40 monthly instalments. The pass book bearing No.397 was issued by the appellant to the respondent. After allotment of the said plot in favour of the respondent and though the respondent had paid the entire sale consideration i.e. Rs.1,60,000/- by 12-12-2007 and asked for registration of the plot, as the appellant has not registered the said plot, he got issued a notice but however the appellant did not respond. In those circumstances, the respondent was constrained to approach the District Forum and file the said complaint.
Initially the appellant did not contest the matter and accordingly an exparte order dated 05-5-2010 was passed in favour of the complainant. Subsequently as the appellant approached this Commission, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the District Forum for fresh consideration. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Commission, the appellant/opposite party filed his written version but did not contest the matter by filing affidavit evidence or arguing the matter. In those circumstances, the District Forum considered the material available on record i.e. complaint, written version and affidavit evidence filed on behalf of the complainant/respondent etc., allowed the said case in favour of the complainant/respondent.
As stated supra, the said order is under challenge before us.
The learned counsel, Mr.A.Rajendra Babu, appearing for the appellant vehemently contended before us stating that the District Forum has no jurisdiction for the reason that the lis between the parties is totally civil in nature and the conveyance of title has to be decided only by a competent civil court. His further submission is that except the endorsement made by the complainant himself in the pass book i.e. in pass book bearing No.397 issued by the appellant, there is nothing on record to establish that the respondent has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent submitted that for conveyance of a title, a suit has to be instituted before a civil court but in the instant case, the respondent is not claiming any title and he is asking for refund of the amount which has been paid by him on the ground of deficiency of service and as such the District Forum has jurisdiction. According to him, the pass book clearly establishes the fact that the respondent has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-.
Having considered the said submission and also the material on record, we are totally in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. If the respondent/complainant is asking for conveyance of title etc., then only it has to be filed before a competent civil court which has jurisdiction. In the instant case, the only point which has to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service or not? From a perusal of the record, it is clear that an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- has already been paid and the appellant has a duty to register the plot which was promised. Non-registration of the said plot as per the understanding arrived at between the parties would definitely amount to deficiency in service. Further from a perusal of pass book bearing No.397, it is true that at the bottom, it is written by the respondent himself as œThus I paid the entire amount by 12-12-2007 at the rate of Rs.800/- per sq. yd.? No doubt, the said endorsement is in the handwriting of the complainant/respondent but the entries which are noted in the pass book clearly indicate that the respondent had paid amounts on different dates from the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and obtained various receipts issued by the appellant, in those circumstances such endorsement may not have any significance. Further it is not as though the appellant had contested the matter tooth and nail, he simply filed his written version and thereafter he did not choose to file affidavit evidence nor did he argue the matter before the District Forum. In those circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum is justified in allowing the said complaint and directing the appellant to refund the said amount.
According this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of order.