LAWS(BOM)-1999-8-86

SIDDHIVINAYAK DEVELOPERS Vs. RAVINDRA SAKHARAM GURAV

Decided On August 02, 1999
SIDDHIVINAYAK DEVELOPERS Appellant
V/S
RAVINDRA SAKHARAM GURAV Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been represented by Shri K. N. Singh, Advocate. The respondent represented himself. They are heard. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to one writing allegedly exchanged between the parties and tried to convince us that the matter was settled and that the respondent/complainant was supposed to withdraw the complaint. However, he has failed to do so and has approached the Forum to recover the money twice. The respondent has submitted a detailed note of arguments with copies of 14 documents as per the list. They were supplied to the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the writing of 14-1-98 and stated that this amount was paid and the matter was settled while the respondent submitted that this transaction has nothing to do with the claims made by him for the abnormal delay of 7 years in handing over the possession of the flat to the complainant. We have carefully seen this paper and we are unable to accept the forceful argument made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that as per this writing of 14-1-98, the amount has been paid on 23-6-98 while the order of the Forum has been passed on 18-4-98. But the learned Counsel miserably failed to show us any satisfactory documentary evidence in support of his submissions. The impugned order has been passed on 18-4-98 and the amount payable by the appellants is Rs. 50,000/- and interest thereon if they fail to pay it within 2 months. The learned Counsel further failed to explain to us as to why the appellants remained absent before the District Forum when they were duly noticed. The copies of the documents submitted by the respondent/complainant speak volumes about the delay and harassment caused by the appellant to the respondent/complainant. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the complaint thoroughly although the appellants were not present before it. It has passed a reasoned order and we do not find any reason to tinker with the same. Therefore, the following order.