SHARAFUDDEEN Vs. SUMITRA BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of respondents/O.Ps. The case of the complainant was that he had in all deposited/given Rs. 4.15 lakhs for construction of a flat probably by mistake against the agreed cost of Rs. 2.20 lakhs to which Rs. 70,000/- was added to cover the cost of extra work agreed to be done by the respondents. The complainant had taken the possession of the flat, what he wanted was refund of the balance amount (Rs. 4.15 lakhs (-) Rs. 2.90 lakhs) and documents of transfer of property/conveyance deed etc. When discussion, meeting and an alleged legal notice did not yield the desired result, he moved the District Forum praying for several reliefs. The District Forum after hearing the parties passed a detailed order dismissing the complaint. An appeal filed by the complainant against this order of the District Forum was dismissed by the State Commission with costs. Hence, this Revision Petition.

(2.) It is argued by the petitioner that both the lower Forums failed to appreciate that excess payment has been made by him to the respondents, he is entitled to refund of excess amount paid and also delivery of conveyance deed of the flat.

(3.) We have perused the material on record and heard the arguments. The only point raised by the petitioner is that the receipt of amounts having been received by the respondents have not been accepted. Lower Forum could not have dismissed the receipts as not acceptable without any evidence on the point. What we see on record is that the element of excess amounts having been paid does not form part of the complaint. In our view the District Forum was quite correct in not believing/relying upon the receipt produced by the petitioner at a later stage. Facts of the case are that these receipts relate only to the amounts not admitted by O.Ps. No receipts are available or produced for the amounts i.e. Rs. 1.65 lakhs admitted as received in three instalments by way of cheques/drafts. Both the lower Forums have gone into this question at length and have not believed the petitioner in the point. State Commission under the circumstances directed the petitioner to pay up the balance of Rs. 1.25 lakhs and get the necessary documents executed. We see no legal infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission, hence, does not call for any interference. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.