NAGARWALA CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur in the case of Mr. Suresh Kumar v. Nagarwala Construction Company. Although the appeal against this order was filed in the State Commission as it should have been, a letter dated 22.4.94 was received from the President of the Maharashtra State Commission stating that one of the Advocates appearing before him in this case was his relative and, therefore, requesting the President of this Commission to invoke the powers u/ Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for purpose of deciding the aforesaid appeal. The President of this Commission passed an order on 26th April, 1994 stating "in view of the circumstances explained in letter dated 22nd April, 1994 of the President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Appeal No. 967/93 and Appeal No. 1010/93 pending before the said State Commission are hereby withdrawn to the National Commission for disposal." Accordingly, this appeal was heard.

(2.) THE dispute in this case is in regard to the delivery of a two -bed room flat which the appellant Nagarwala Construction Company was to give to Shri Suresh Kumar, the respondent herein. Shri Suresh Kumar had filed a complaint before the District Forum Nagpur saying that the Appellant illegally cancelled the agreement of sale of flat on the ground that he did not pay an amount of Rs. 71,000/ - as per their demand and also forfeited the amount already paid by him. The District Forum after going through the evidence led before them, gave its order on the following four issues:

(3.) WE have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent. We do not find anything new in the averments of appellant that had not been said before the District Forum. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the proposition that whenever the documents produced before the consumer redressal agencies are questioned, the matter should be referred straightway to the Civil Court. If it is possible to establish the genuineness of a document based on the evidence, including the circumstantial evidence available, there should be no reason as to why the matter should be referred for a prolonged litigation in the Civil Court to the disadvantage of the consumer complainant, as a matter of general rule. We find that the District Forum has given cogent reasons for rejecting the agreement of sale produced by the appellant and, therefore, hold the order of the District Forum to be just and correct in this respect.