NARENDRA K SODHI Vs. MOHAN B SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the flat was ready in the year 1997 and it is the complainant who was not willing to take possession of the flat because the complainant felt that the flat was defective. He relied on a letter placed on record wherein the complainant vide his complaint dated 20.12.1999 stated that he was facing financial difficulties in staying there because of several problems. It is noted in the letter that the petitioner had suggested an alternative apartment in Borivalli and that he was willing to get the same in exchange and waiting for a reply from the petitioner. The complainant in the same letter further stated that there was no reply from the petitioner and requested the petitioner to reply immediately. There was no reply from the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a document at page 39 Exhibit C which is undated, with no signature or amount mentioned therein, which is contended to be a stereotype notice issued to the respondent. Before the District Forum, the petitioner was ex parte. The State Commission, after going through the record as well as the documentary evidence, has come to a conclusion that the petitioner had agreed to deliver the possession of the flat in March 1997. The total consideration for the flat was Rs. 4,76,000 and the complainant paid Rs. 4,52,000 in time. The State Commission has directed the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs. 4,52,000 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. along with the cost of litigation awarded by the District Forum.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length. In view of the fact that the petitioner was absent before the District Forum and that a large sum was paid by the respondent, who was in difficulty in keeping up his loan arrangement to finance the same, we do not find any reason to interfere with well-reasoned orders passed by both the District Forum and State Commission. There is no document on record to show that in the year 1997, the petitioner had actually sent a notice or a letter offering possession of the flat. Mere notings or a statement made by the respondent regarding an alternative flat cannot be construed as evidence to be relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner could have come squarely with all the documents and proof that there is no deficiency in service on their part. This has not been done in this case. Even after receiving the letter from the respondent in 1999, the petitioner claims to reply in the year 2002.

(3.) There is a clear deficiency on the part of petitioner and it is the pleading of the respondent that he would like to have the entire amount with interest. There is no reason for us to interfere with well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission. Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.