SUSHILA CHS LTD. Vs. SAI CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order passed by Learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No. 505/2011 on 31/10/2012, original complainant - Sushila Co -operative Housing Society Ltd. has filed the present appeal against the original opponent. By the order under challenge, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed. Opponent/respondent was directed to pay Rs. 5000/ - to the complainant towards compensation and amount of Rs. 1000/ - as costs of the litigation. The opponent/respondent was further directed to execute Conveyance Deed within six weeks from the date of order. Facts giving rise to present appeal in short are as under: -

(2.) The respondent had opposed the consumer complaint by filing written version. It is specifically denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. It is admitted that amount of Rs. 4,05,000/ - was returned to the complainant. However, it is denied that amount of Rs. 7,25,000/ - was retained illegally. It is submitted that respondent never refused to execute conveyance deed. However, the complainant society never co -operated. It is not admitted that the respondent accepted an amount of Rs. 5000/ - from each member for formation of society. In an agreement amount of Rs. 3000/ - is mentioned for formation of society. The society was not formed by the members. The complainant/respondent had claimed reliefs, which are barred by limitation. The claim of the complainant for refund of amount of Rs. 7,25,000/ - with interest is illegal and incorrect. The respondent had accepted receipt of amount of Rs. 11,35,000/ - from the complainant. On 02/02/2007 society was formed. On formation of society, meeting was held on 26/05/2007. Prior to formation of society, some amount was spent by the respondent for maintenance of flats. It was agreed in a meeting that after deducing the amount spent towards maintenance, remaining amount of Rs. 8,50,000/ - was to be returned to the society. Subsequently, office bearers of the society were changed. The complainant started claiming excess amount illegally. The respondent had paid an amount of Rs. 4,05,000/ - to the society, out of amount of Rs. 8,50,000/ -. Respondent had issued two cheques for amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ - and Rs. 1,50,000/ -. Respondent was ready to pay amount of Rs. 4,50,000/ -. Still the respondent is ready to pay the said amount. It was decided that the respondent should install overhead tank on a building and to install pipeline. It was decided that the respondent should spend amount for the said work initially. Members of the society would collect the amount and satisfy the expenditure. Members of the society had given assurance to incur the expenditure. Accordingly, respondent paid an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/ - and installed overhead tank on a building and installed new pipeline. Members of the society failed to pay said amount to the respondent as per assurance. Therefore, respondent had withheld amount of cheque and did not pay that amount of cheque to the society. The respondent had completed the procedure for formation of society and completed the process of documentation. He had simply taken help of flat purchaser Sanjay Dhumal and Uday Dhumal. Said Uday Dhumal was well acquainted with flat purchaser Sanjay Dhumal. Respondent had spent amount for formation of the society. Amount received from the flat purchasers was utilized for formation of society by the respondent. Now the society cannot claim refund of said amount. Sanctioned map was only changed. As per clause 18 of the agreement, respondent has a right to make use of 40% parking space, terrace lobbies and land adjoining to building. The respondent is still ready to execute conveyance deed. Proprietor of respondent was/is ready to repay amount of Rs. 4,50,000/ - to the complainant/appellant. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

(3.) Both the parties led evidence by filing affidavits. Complainant has placed reliance on several documents.