State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bhaveshbhai S Akhani vs Devis Chandubhai Patel on 5 July, 2022
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 05 07 2022
Date of filling 21 04 2016
Duration 14 02 06
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Court-2
APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2016
Bhaveshbhai Shivlal Akhani
601, Divya Jivan Hights,
Opp. Swaminarayan Dham,
Kudasan,
Gandhinagar. .... Appellant
Vs.
1. Devis Chandubhai Patel
B-17, Govindsagar Co-Op,
Housing Society,
Panchvati,
Ta: Kalol, Dist: Gandhinagar.
2. Shukan Royal Corporation,
'Shukan Royal', near Shukan Silver,
Opp. Swaminarayan Dham
Koba- Gandhinagar Highway,
Kudasan, Gandhinagar.
3. Aashishbhai Patel
Shrifal Heights,
Opp. Swaminarayan Dham
Koba- Gandhinagar Highway,
Kudasan, Gandhinagar. ...Respondents
Appearance: Ld. Advocate Mr. K.J.Dholakia
For the appellant,
Ld. Advocate Ms. Smruti G. Shah for
Respondent No. 1.
Coram: Shri M. J. Mehta, Judicial Member
Order by Shri M.J. Mehta, Judicial Member B.H.Gadhavi A-16-225 Page 1 of 8
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 passed by the DCDRC, Gandhinagar in Consumer Complaint No. 224 of 2014, the appellant has preferred instant appeal on the grounds that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and bad in law.
2. The parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature for the sake of the convenience.
3. Brief facts of the present case are as under:
complainant has purchased the flat from opp. no. 1 in Shukan Royal through Mr. Parth Thakkar and Anish Thakkar. Opp. No. 2 and 3 are constructor of building of Opp. No.1.
4. on 11.02.2014 complainant visited the site of Shukan Royal and also checked the broacher, thereafter he booked two B/H/K flat no. B-301 on the third floor, Opp. No. 2 informed him that it cost Rs. 18,251/- per sq. mtr, the flat which is booked by complainant was of 184 sq. mtr, and calculating the flat would cost of Rs. 26,46,260/- and further it was informed that if complainant pay 50% of the amount before 17.02.2014 than it will cost Rs. 18,221/- per sq. mtr and after 18.02.2014 it will cost Rs. 18,651/- per sq. mtr.
5. Further on 11.02.2014 complainant gave cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Opp. No.2 on the name of Opp. No. 1. For that formal receipt was made B.H.Gadhavi A-16-225 Page 2 of 8 wherein respondent no. 2 and Mr. Anish Thakkar have signed it and accordingly the complainant is the consumer of opponents.
6. Thereafter on 17.02.2014, 50% of the amount cheque i.e. Rs. 6,00,000/-, and second cheque of Rs. 6,23,125/- were given to the opponents. And both the cheques were realised by the opponents, in total Rs. 13,23,125/- was paid.
7. Thereafter when complainant got to know of some economic scandal to Shukan Group, he went to the office of the Opp. No. 2 for inquire about the same, where Opp. No.2 informed that complainants scheme is Shukan Royal and no any relation with Shukan Groups and assured that he will get the flat within short time.
8. After some time, complainant visited the site of Shukan Royal, where the name of the flat was changed to Shrifal Heights which is developed by the Balaji Infrastructure.
9. When complainant contacted to Opp. No.1 and 2 they informed complainant that they do not want to work with Shukan Royal Scheme and they sold it to another builder, and if complainant wants to buy flat in that scheme it will cost Rs. 24,200/- per Sq. mtr. As it will cost amount of Rs. 35,09,000/- and then only complainant can get the possession of the said flat. Being aggrieved by the said behavior, complainant filed B.H.Gadhavi A-16-225 Page 3 of 8 the complaint before the District Commission for the amount of Rs. 13,23,125/- with 18% from the date of 17.02.2014 and Rs. 1,00,000/- for the compensation and Rs. 25,000/-for the cost which should be paid jointly and severally by the opponents.
10. Before the District Commission Opp. Nos.1 and 3 have not filed their replies, only Opp. No. 2 has filed his reply which is produced at Exh. 9 in that it was mentioned that they are only doing construction work in their own building and not in others, and they are not partners of owner of the Shukan Royal Corporation. Ori. Opp. No. 2 here in appellant has only intimated about the questioned scheme to the complainant and suggested to visit the site of Shukan Royal if complainant is interested.
11. The said fact about that "If the complainant pays 50% of the amount before 17.02.2014 than it will cost Rs. 18,221/- per sq. mtr and after 18.02.2014 it will cost Rs. 18,651/- per sq. mtr." This was informed by the owner of the Shukan Royal and so Opp. No. 2 suggested to complainant, and accordingly Opp. No. 2 accepted the cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- and gave the formal receipt of that amount, the said cheque is deposited in the account of Shukan Royal Corporation. Hence there is no relation between the Opp. No.2 and Shukan Royal Corporation, even the formal receipt of payment B.H.Gadhavi A-16-225 Page 4 of 8 is also of the Shukan Royal Corporation and therefore, the complainant is not consumer of the Opp. No. 2.
12. District Commission has heard both the sides advocates, considered the case papers and viewed that as per the receipt it is prove that Opp. No.2 is working on behalf of Shukan Royal Corporation, further the amount of Rs. 13,23,125/- was paid in total by the complainant and some amount was accepted by the Opp. No.2 on behalf of Shukan Roayal Corporation, therefore District Commission has concluded that Opp. No.2 is working for Shukan Royal Corporation than only he can accept the money, and once he has accepted money than he is responsible to refund the amount and lastly ordered that amount Rs. 13,23,125/- with 9% cumulative interest paid to the complainant and further Rs. 5,000/- for compensation and Rs. 3,000/- for the cost should be paid by the Opponents jointly and severally.
13. Therefore, here today Mr. K.J.Dholakia for the appellant has submitted before me that Opp. No.2/ Appellant has not acted on behalf of the Opp. No. 1 and 3 he has no concern with the Opp. Nos. 1 and 3, further Mr. Dholakia has referred page no. 35 which is documentary proof where it shows that present appellant has no concern with the Shukan Royal corporation, B.H.Gadhavi A-16-225 Page 5 of 8 further relied upon page nos. 36 and 37 and there is no name disclosed about any ownership or partnership of Opp. No. 2 in the Shukan Royal Corporation, thereby the present appellant is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.
14. Here one thing traced out from the judgment of the District Commission that Rs. 1,00,000/- cheque for selection of flat which is produced before District Commission, on mark 3/1 was written statement for advantage of early 50% payment dated 11.02.2014, by Opp No. 2, mark 3/2 is copy of formal receipt for acceptance of cheque dated 17.02.2014 by Opp No. 2.
Thereby it is clearly mentioned that Opp. No. 2has played role that he has accepted money on behalf of Opp. no.1 and 3.
15. Moreover, the advantage of advance payment of amount is explained to the complainant by the Opp. No. 2 himself, and complainant has paid the amount accordingly suggested by Opp. No. 2 all this behavior of the present appellant clearly suggest that he is associated with the Opp. No.1 and 3 and District Commission has rightly viewed and come to conclusion.
16. Moreover, the Opp. No. 2 has worked at the sight of Shukan Royal Corporation and he is doing business as building contractor and therefore he has accept the money from the B.H.Gadhavi A-16-225 Page 6 of 8 complainant and thereby its conclusively drawn our attention that he has actively associated with Opp. No. 1 and 3, further the flat in question was sold out to another constructor and under such circumstances once if someone has accepted the money than he is responsible to refund the amount. Therefore, District Commission has come to a conclusion that Opp. Nos. 1,2 and 3 are jointly and severely liable to pay Rs. 13,23,125/- at the 9% interest is very well accordingly to law.
17. Considering judgement of the District Commission, document on record I came to conclusion that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the District Commission, I do not find any ground to allow this appeal and Hence, present appeal is dismissed.
FINAL ORDER
i) Appeal No. 225 of 2016 is Dismissed.
ii) The judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 passed by the DCDRC, Gandhinagar in Consumer Complaint No. 224 of 2014 is hereby confirmed.
iii) No order as to cost in appeal.
iv) The office hereby ordered to pay if any deposited amount with accrued interest on proper B.H.Gadhavi A-16-225 Page 7 of 8 verification of the appellant by Account payee cheques and the cheques be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt.
v) Registry is directed to send certified copy of this judgment to the parties, and send a copy this judgment to the DCDRC, Gandhinagar through E-mail in PDF format for taking necessary action.
Pronounced in the open court on 5th July,2022.
(M.J. Mehta) Judicial Member B.H.Gadhavi A-16-225 Page 8 of 8