State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Real Craft Developers, vs Mukesh Babaria & Anr. on 9 August, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
(A/11/2700)
Appeal No. 419/2011
Instituted on 28.07.11
Real Craft Developers,
324, 3rd Floor, Lalganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road,
RAIPUR(C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Mukesh Babaria, S/o Shri Nagardas Babaria,
R/o: 21/987, Vrindavan, Civil Lines, Raipur,
Tah.& Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K.PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Satyendra Shrivas, for appellant.
ORAL ORDER Dated: 09/08/2011 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against order dated 28.06.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.313/2010, whereby the complaint has been partly allowed and the District Forum has directed the appellant to transfer plot Nos. D-4 and D-5 of Khasra No. 2124 to 2142 as per lay out plan, after doing the work of plotting, to the complainant / respondent, as those plots were booked by the complainant and he had paid whole consideration to the appellant. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that survey Nos., which have been mentioned by the District Forum in the impugned order, are // 2 // not available and no money was obtained by the appellant from the respondent / complainant for sale of plot of those survey Nos.
2. We have gone through the order recorded by the District Forum.
3. There appears no quarrel between the parties that Rs.7,00,000/- were paid by the complainant / respondent to the appellant for sale of 2 plots measuring 1000 sq.ft. each @ Rs.3,50,000/-. The only dispute between the parties is in respect of survey Nos. in which the plots are available and from which plots were sold. Right from very beginning, the case of the respondent / complainant was that plots of survey nos.2124 to 2142 was sold, which is land of 10 acres and commonly known as Aam Bagicha. Now the appellant is trying to shift the plot of complainant from that place to another place, which comes in the category of unfair trade practice.
4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that though the land bearing survey no.2124 to 2142 was of the ownership of the appellant, but plot Nos. D-4 and D-5 were not available in that survey nos. He submitted that plot Nos. become available only after doing work of plotting and in those survey Nos., the plots having Nos. D-4 and D-5 have been allotted to someone else.
// 3 //
5. From the arguments of counsel for the appellant and from the pleading of the appellant before District Forum, it appears that though initially plot Nos. D-4 and D-5 were sold, but now the appellant is trying to twist the facts to avoid the sale of those plots to the respondent / complainant for the reasons best known to him.
6. Thus after having considered the arguments of counsel for the appellant and going through the order recorded by the District Forum, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum is appropriate and calls for no interference, so we do not find any substance in this appeal, the same is dismissed in limine.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/08/2011 /08/2011 /08/2011