KHALID YAKUB DAMAD Vs. ABDUL HAMID BARMARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the opposite party is directed against order dated 8. 7. 2004 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) vide which, allowing the complaint of the respondents, the State Commission had directed the appellant/o. P. to refund a sum of Rs. 5,40,000 to the respondent/complainants with interest @ 9% p. a. w. e. f. 31. 3. 1997 till realization. The State Commission had further ordered the payment of Rs. 10,000 as compensation towards mental agony and another sum of Rs. 5,000 towards the cost of litigation. Brief facts of the case

(2.) AS culled out from the records of the case, the facts are that the respondents entered into an agreement with the appellant/opposite party who is the proprietor of M/s. Unicorn Construction, for the purchase of seven flats for a total consideration of Rs. 6,30,000 in a building by the name of 'silver Park' at Kausa, Thane. The said greement was entered into on 1. 2. 1997 and as per the respondent/complainants, the entire total amount of Rs. 6,30,000 was paid to the opposite party-builder in cash on the same day. However, the appellant-builder on 31. 3. 1997 sent a letter to the respondent/complainants stating that the agreement entered into on 1. 2. 1997 will have to be cancelled since there would be delay in construction of the proposed Silver Park Building. He, however, offered them seven flats alternatively in a newly constructed building known as 'kulsum Manzil' at Kausa. The respondent/complainants, there upon, were asked to enter into a new agreement for the sale of seven flats, G-1 to G-7 for the same earlier total consideration of Rs. 6,30,000. It is the say of the respondent/complainants that the appellant/opposite party-builder gave possession of only one flat i. e. G-3 and failed to honour his commitment with regard to handing over of the remaining six flats. When repeated approach to deliver possession or in the alternative refund the balance amount with 50% interest failed to evoke any response, the respondent/complainants issued a legal notice on the appellants on 7. 11. 1997. They were surprised to receive a reply from the Advocate of the appellant-builder on 18. 12. 1997 denying the existence of any agreement or receipt of Rs. 6,30,000. Respondent/complainant thereafter issued a second notice to which no reply was received. To top it all they were shocked to receive a letter of the Dy. Commissioner of Thane Municipal Corporation stating that the building on which the 'kulsum Manzil' has been constructed was unauthorized. The complainants further alleged that the appellant/o. P.-builder had in a clandestine manner disposed of the other 6 flats. They felt that they have been completely duped and cheated. Therefore, they filed complaint No. 548 of 1999 before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted their complaint and granted the reliefs already stated above.

(3.) IT is this order of the State Commission that is being challenged in Appeal before us by the appellant-O. P. builder. Learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of the State Commission on the ground that while the appellant/o. P.-builder had all along been contending that the so-called agreement was a false, fabricated and forged document, the State Commission without any reference of the document to the handwriting expert compared the signature of the appellant at their own level and concluded that the agreement was a genuine one. The Counsel contends that the document being only a photocopy, it could be easily manipulated and the course adopted by the State Commission was not permissible in law. He has further alleged that the agreement was on a stamp paper which was purchased in the name of someone else. The State Commission ought to have taken into account the serious objections and allegations of the appellant that the documents were forged and should have discarded the same.