SHAH ALAM Vs. KAZI KADEERUDDIN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) Very briefly stated the facts of the case leading to filing the complaint were that the respondent/complainant had booked a flat in Lake City Apartment, for which he paid an advance of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. Since the flat was not getting completed in time, he asked for refund of money. As a result of this demand, he was refunded Rs. 50,000/ - on 2.12.03 and rest of money has not been paid to him despite repeated promises by the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner before the District Forum was that admittedly he received Rs. 1,50,000/ - as per agreement relating to the flat in question but since complainant wanted refund of money on account of health problem of his wife, he returned Rs. 50,000/ - in the first instance and subsequently Rs. 1 lakh in cash in small instalments. The District Forum, after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1 lakh being the unpaid amount of the deposited amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us.

(3.) We heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. His case is that since money was taken and the petitioner not being a builder, there is no contract between the parties. This is a dispute of payment of money which should have been dealt by a civil court. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.