JAGDISH GUPTA Vs. GANGA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 30.12.2002 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttaranchal, Dehradun allowing appeal against the order dated 29.8.2002 of a District Forum and relegating the petitioner-complainant to a Civil Court for redressal of the claims made and to recover the booking amount with interest @ 9% p.a. from respondent-opposite party by initiating execution proceedings etc.

(2.) Petitioner had booked Shop Nos. L-49 and L-50 in Mansarover Commercial Centre, Haridwar of the respondent by paying earnest money of Rs. 25,000 on 1.1.1990. On not handing over possession, executing and registering sale deed in regard to these shops by respondent, the petitioner filed complaint claiming certain reliefs which was contested by the respondent by filing written version. District Forum allowed the complaint. English translation of the operative portion of State Commission's order, which is in Hindi and is material, reads, thus : "Appeal is accepted. Complaint is dismissed. Petitioner, if he so wishes, may recover the amount of Rs. 50,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of deposit after serving notice or initiating execution proceedings against the respondent. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court for redressal of his grievances. In case the petitioner opts for the second option, then respondent will not suffer adversely if it does not comply with the first option. Parties are left to bear their own costs."

(3.) Ground on which order under challenge was passed, was that there did not exist any written agreement containing the terms and conditions of sale; when possession of shops was to be given, what will be the consequences if the possession of shops is not delivered within three months starting from 1.1.1990, price of shops being payable @ Rs. 1,000 per sq. ft. and the complaint was in the nature of specific performance of a contract. In our view on these grounds the appeal could not have been allowed against the reasoned order of District Forum and petitioner relegated to Civil Court. Order under appeal, thus, deserves to be set aside being not sustainable in law and case remanded to the State Commission for appeal being decided on merit.