SHRI RISHABH ENTERPRISES Vs. NEETU DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed by Shri Rishabh Enterprises, Petitioner herein, being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal Nos.275/2007 and 276/2007 decided in favour of Smt.Neetu Dutta and Km.Abhijeeta Dutta respectively, Respondents herein, who were the original complainants before the District Forum.

(2.) In her complaint before the District Forum, Respondent had stated that Petitioner had reserved a plot for her in a Scheme known as "Harsh Nagar Scheme", the total cost of which was Rs.12,000/-, by charging her Rs.1,000/- as advance. The balance amount was to be paid in 32 monthly installments of Rs.350/- each. Respondent deposited a total sum of Rs.4,850/- upto 10th February, 2004 i.e. Rs.1,000/- as advance and Rs.350/- per month for 11 months. Thereafter, since no information was received from Petitioner regarding the remaining installments, Respondent did not make any further payment. Respondent, however, contacted Petitioner regarding further payments who told her that after expiry of the period of the Scheme, she could deposit the remaining amount in lump sum for which an agreement would be executed in her favour after charging her expenses of registry. However, even after the expiry of the Scheme, Petitioner did not send any communication to the Respondent nor did it execute any agreement in her favour by receiving the balance amount from her. Respondent, therefore, sent registered notices to Petitioner to which there was no response. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner be directed to give details of the remaining balance amount against the plot reserved in Respondent's name to enable her to make payment of the balance amount and get the registry executed in her name. Rs.10,000/- were sought as compensation and litigation costs.

(3.) Petitioner in its response submitted fact that a plot had been reserved for the Respondent, the value of which was Rs.12,000/- Respondent had deposited Rs.1,000/- against the booking amount for which she was issued necessary receipt. Thereafter, Respondent deposited a total amount of Rs.3,400/- in 11 installments in 17 months from 07.10.2002 to 10.02.2004 against which also receipts were issued. However, thereafter Respondent stopped paying the monthly installments even though Petitioner had reminded her over telephone every month for depositing the remaining installments and had also sent a postcard in this connection. Petitioner denied that it had told Respondent that she could deposit the remaining amount in lump sum after the Scheme was over and Registry will be executed in her favour after paying registration expenses. As per the terms and conditions of the Scheme, it was mandatory to deposit the required amounts every month and in case the installments were due for 6 months or more, there was a provision for cancellation of allotment of the plot. Respondent was bound by the terms and conditions of this contract. Petitioner further stated since the Respondent had not deposited the remaining amount in monthly installments, allotment of the plot was cancelled in August, 2004 as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme. There was no deficiency in service on Petitioner's part and it was Respondent who did not comply with the terms and conditions which resulted in cancellation of the plot.