- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 17.12.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 97/2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), whereby the complainant was directed to approach proper Forum. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the complainant has approached this Commission vide the appeal under consideration.
(2.) BACKGROUND of the case is that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint before the District Forum, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.3.2006 due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Subsequent there to the complainant filed complaint before the State Commission, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 09/2006, but the State Commission came to the conclusion that the complaint was triable by the District Forum and not the Commission, hence the complaint was sent to District Forum vide order dated 4.8.2006 for being considered and tried there. Thereafter, it was registered as Complaint Case No. 97/2008 by the District Forum, Bilaspur. The impugned order was passed in the said complaint.
(3.) BRIEF facts of the complaint are that OP No. l was a developer of residential plots. Plot No. HIG 27 was allotted to the complainant. Subsequently alternative plot No. HIG 37 was allotted on the ground that plot No. HIG 27 was already under mortgage. It was averred that by changing the allotment, the OP has committed deficiency in service. Besides this, it was further alleged that at the time of handing over possession, the campus was not properly developed and the house constructed by the OPs on the said plot was also of inferior quality. From Commissioner report, it is evident that the construction was not up to the mark and the complainant had to spend additional amount towards rectification work. It was further averred that the price of plot and the house build thereon was Rs. 1,27,500 but the OPs recovered a sum of Rs. 1,66,020 from the complainant. In this way, the OPs have recovered Rs. 58,500 in access of the price, which he was required to pay. The complainant made various efforts and approached the OPs for redressal of his grievances, but the OPs failed to pay heed to his request. In the complaint, the complainant claimed Rs. 3,15,000 towards damages with interest @ 12% and cost of proceedings. Ops resisted the complaint OP No. l had filed written version, whereas OP No. 2 had filed written version -cum affidavit. Similar averments were made by the Ops. It was stated that as the complainant wished to obtain loan from his employer, CSEB, he demanded certain documents related from the Ops relating to House No. 27, but as the said house was already mortgaged, it was proposed that different house may be allotted in favour of the complainant and documents relating to the said house can be made available to the complainant, on the basis of which, he may obtain loan. As the complainant agreed to the proposition, house No. 37 was allotted to the complainant, and relevant documents were provided. On the basis of those documents, the complainant successfully obtained loan from his employer. It was further averred that when the complainant was handed over possession of the house, development work of the colony was completed, construction of all the houses including white washing, etc. was completed, and was as per terms of agreement. Repeated intimations were given to the complainant to make payment of the remaining amount and obtain possession of the house and to get sale deed executed in his favour, but the complainant failed to make necessary payment and hence sale deed could not be executed in his favour. The Ops are still ready and willing to execute the sale deed if the remaining amount is paid to them. It was further averred by the Ops that as the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 93,000 as Member of Samiti, possession of house No. 37 was handed over to him. There was no deficiency in service by OP Nos. 1 and 2 and the complaint is false and baseless and deserves to be dismissed.;