National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rajasthan State Industries ... vs Marudhar Handicrafts on 18 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)CPJ126(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.4.1996 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur allowing complaint filed by the respondent and directing appellant/opposite party-Corporation to pay an amount of Rs. 2,03,316/- with interest @ 18% p.a. as also the compensation of Rs. 50,00/-.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Respondent who is an exporter of Sangaeri Print Cloth, was allotted plot No. G-223 in Sanganer Industrial Scheme by the appellant. After receipt of total amount of Rs. 2,03,316/-, appellant executed lease deed of the plot in favour of respondent on 4.3.1993. It was alleged that by the letter dated 16.5.1992, appellant asked the respondent to take possession of the plot on 21.5.1992. On reaching plot, the respondent found that some agriculturists had put fencing of wire around the plot and it was being used for sowing crop. Though respondent visited the officials of appellant-Corporation in connection with delivery of possession but possession of plot was not given. In view of filing of C.W.P. No. 1984 of 1993 by on Gyarsi, it was not within the control of appellant-Corporation to hand over possession of the plot. Complaint seeking certain reliefs filed by the respondent was contested by the appellant by filing written version. Allotment of plot No. G-223, receipt of amount of Rs. 2,03,316/- from the respondent and pendency of C.W.P. No. 1984 of 1993 were not disputed. However, it was alleged that respondent has been delivered possession of the plot on 21.5.1992 and thereafter lease deed was also executed in respondent's favour on 4.6.2003. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service and the respondent is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. State Commission allowed the complaint in the manner noticed above.
3. Having heard Mr. Narottam Vyas for appellant and Mr. Manmohan Khetan for respondent and having considered the pleadings, the controversy between the parties centres around the question if possession of plot in question had/had not been handed over to the respondent on 21.5.1992. Copy of possession letter of the plot is placed at P-21. Copy of show cause notice dated 16.12.1992 sent by appellant to the respondent is at P-22 while that of reply dated 23.12.1992 sent by respondent to the appellant at P-23. Copy of lease deed dated 4.3.1992 is at PP 19-20.
4. It was not disputed that said possession letter is signed by Babulal Doshi, proprietor of respondent. In terms of said show cause notice, appellant-Corporation had threatened to determine the lease and re-enter the plot in case instalment amount of Rs. 50,897/- was not paid within 90 days. Along with said reply to show cause notice dated 23.12.1992, the respondent had enclosed cheque for the said amount. This reply notices the respondent undertook to start construction of factory on the plot in the month itself. Breakup of Rs. 2,03,316/- paid has been given in para No. 3 of the complaint. That breakup would show that out of this amount, sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid on 10.7.1992, again Rs. 50,000/- on 8.9.1992 and Rs. 5,000/-on 4.1.1993. If respondent had not been handed over possession of the plot in question on 21.5.1992, said proprietor of respondent firm would not have signed the possession letter dated 21.5.1992, paid three instalments on 10.7.1992, 8.9.1992 and 4.1.1993, got executed lease deed on 4.3.1992 and omitted to mention in aforesaid reply dated 23.12.1992 about possession of plot having not been handed over. To be only noted that no complaint of nondelivery in writing was also made to the appellant-Corporation after execution of lease deed till date of filing of complaint on 13.2.1995 by the respondent. In this backdrop, order under appeal whereby appellant has been ordered to refund aforementioned amount with interest holding it to be deficient in service on ground of possession of plot not being given, cannot be legally sustained. In the event of respondent loosing title in the said plot as a result of decision in said writ petition filed by Gyarsi it may seek the remedy as permissible under law, against the appellant-Corporation.
5. Consequently, appeal is allowed and order dated 23.4.1996 set aside and complaint dismissed. No order as to costs.