SANJAY SINGH Vs. RAJENDRA DAS GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/OP nos. 1 & 2 have filed the present revision petition challenging order dated 25.8.2009 passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short 'State Commission') vide which their appeal was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts are that respondent No. 1/complainant had entered into an agreement with petitioners/OP nos. 1 & 3, who are builders and also in the business of sale and purchase of land. Respondent No. 1 being impressed with their advertisement contacted petitioners and after seeing the land entered into an agreement with them on 28.6.2005 and paid Rs. 40,000/-. It is stated that petitioners had also shown the layout plan etc. relating to the land. Respondent no. 1 reminded the petitioners to execute registered sale deed after taking balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- together with Rs. 15,000/- towards registration charges. Petitioners told respondent no. 1 that they are also builders and they will hand-over the land after building the house upon it. After such assurance, petitioners collected cheque no. 037034 drawn on Apex Bank, Bilaspur from respondent no. 1, but did not get the sale deed registered. The cheque was got encashed by respondent no. 2/OP no. 3 but land was not registered in favour of the respondent no. 1. Accordingly, respondent no. 1 claimed refund with interest.

(3.) Petitioners and respondent No. 2 resisted the claim on the ground that respondent no. 1 has made complaint to the Police, hence complaint before District Forum is not maintainable. Petitioners also took the plea that vide notice dated 14.10.2006, they asked respondent no. 1 to pay the amount and get the land registered but he has failed to do so. Petitioner no. 1 is always ready and willing to execute registry in favour of respondent no. 1 but respondent no. 1 has failed to fulfill the terms. Petitioners deny that there was any undertaking regarding building the house on the aforesaid land. It is further stated that Singh Consultancy is a proprietorship firm of petitioner No. 1.