THAKKAR SHAILESH J DAWDA Vs. MURLIDHAR ACHUTH KAMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY put the facts of the case are that the complainants, in response to an advertisement floated by the petitioner for purchase of bungalow plots applied for the same, got allotment, paid certain amounts but when delivery of the possession was not forthcoming for want of clearance from the Competent Authority (original plot being agricultural land it was to be converted for non-agricultural purposes and lay-out plan was to be approved), the complainant moved the District Forum for refund of deposited amount with interest. Petitioner remained absent in spite of notice, hence, based on material on record the District Forum passed order directing the petitioner to refund the amounts deposited by the complainants with interest and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Review application filed by the petitioner before the District Forum was dismissed as not being maintainable. An appeal filed against the original order before the State Commission by the petitioner was dismissed, hence, this revision petition.

(3.) SINCE the point of law involved is the same and complainants being different, the petitioners being the same, we go on to dispose of these two revision petitions through a single order.