PROF LALLUBHAI PARBHUBHAI SHAH Vs. PRADEEP LUNAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a retired Government servant. He retired from the post of Assistant Professor, Film Production in Film and TV Institute at Pune. He is now 80 years of age. He is aggrieved by the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing his appeal and affirming the order of the District Forum relegating the dispute of an amount of Rs. 30,000/ - between the petitioner and the respondent builder to Civil Court. Petitioner has lot of grievances against the judicial system. He had filed detailed notes of his written submissions in support of his petition. We are also unable to help him in respect of all his grievances.

(2.) PETITIONER -complainant entered into an agreement with the respondent -builder for purchase of bungalow in a complex being constructed by the respondent. Under the agreement complainant was to get possession of bungalow on 31.12.1990. This date was then changed to 31.3.1991. Complainant was not given possession. Complainant was informed by the respondent by his letter dated 20.7.1992 that he had obtained completion certificates from the Municipal Corporation and that unit was ready for delivery of possession. Petitioner was informed that a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - was due from him under the agreement and Rs. 7,500/ - was also due from him towards additional work carried out as per his instructions. Petitioner was asked to pay these amounts before taking possession. He was asked to intimate the date suitable to him for taking the possession. Certain other documents were also sent to the petitioner for his being admitted as member of NCL Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. This society, it would appear, was formed with other, owners of the bungalows in the complex. By this letter of 20.7.1992 petitioner was also informed that a sum of Rs. 1,251/ - was being sent to the Society by the respondent for completion of membership formalities on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner took possession of the bungalow on 2.10.1992. At that time he gave the possession receipt which we set out in full.

(3.) IT would be seen that there is no mention of about Rs. 30,000/ - which so admittedly was paid by the petitioner to the respondent before taking over the possession of the bungalow. This letter dated 5.11.1994 of the petitioner was replied by the respondent refuting all the allegations. Petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum on 29.12.1994 as he had warned the respondent. He wanted reimbursement of the Rs. 21,896/ - with interest from the amount of Rs. 30,000/ - charged and not accounted for by the respondent. District Forum found that respondent had cured or repaired whatever deficiencies were found and that respondent also tried to explain how he spent the amount of Rs. 30,000/ - taken by him at the time of delivery of possession to the petitioner. District Forum was of the view that this amount of Rs. 30,000/ - is required recording of evidence and this could not be a consumer dispute within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Holding that the matter is complicated one requiring evidence, District Forum dismissed the complaint but at the same time observed that petitioner may go to Civil Court if he so desired and advised as per law. No order was made regarding costs.