PRAHLAD Vs. KRISHNAJI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was opposite party No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was complainant while respondent No. 2 was opposite party No. 2 In the complaint. Petitioner formed layout of the land comprised in RS No. 945 situated in Mahalbagayat. Site No. 15 was sold by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 27,000/- on 4-9-1990 under a registered sale deed. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 on moving respondent No. 2 for permission to construct house on said site, was Intimated by respondent No. 2 that petitioner had not completed the development work and also not deposited amount of Rs. 6.47,051 /- as demanded by respondent No. 2 through the letter dated 23-6-1997. It was stated that respondent No. 1 was unable to build the house for all these seven years because of deficiency in service on part of petitioner. Complaint claiming certain reliefs filed by respondent No. I was contested by the petitioner by filing written version. Main ground taken by the petitioner was that site No. 15 was sold to respondent No. 1 on outright sale basis and the sale deed dated 4-9-1990 did not cast as obligation on the petitioner in relation to the formation of site. The District Forum negating this stand allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to pay Rs. 50.000/- by way of compensation. Dis-satisfied with District Forum's order, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission. It is this order which is being impugned in this revision.

(2.) Mrs. Rajani K. Prasad for petitioner while reiterating aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner, contends that both the fora below have erred in passing order for payment of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation by the petitioner to respondent No. 1. As may be seen from the order dated 7-8- 1999, such a contention was also raised on behalf of petitioner before the State Commission and while dealing with that contention in para No. 10 of the order (at p-42), the Commission returned the finding that the petitioner cannot shrug off the liability to perform obligations in relation"to formation of sites merely on the ground that site in question had been sold on outright sale basis to respondent No. 1 and the obligation of petitioner was not necessarily in relation to a particular site but was in respect of lay out as such. We are not inclined to take a view different from that taken by the State Commission. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, the before, dismissed. Petition dismissed.