First Appeal Nos. 1849 of 2010 and 1372 of 2011. Case: Satish Rajan Dubey and Ors. Vs Amar Singh Rajput and Ors.. Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal Nos. 1849 of 2010 and 1372 of 2011 |
| Judges | Rakesh Saksena, J. (President) and Neerja Singh, Member |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 203; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138; Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 14(3), 34 |
| Citation | I (2015) CPJ 100 |
| Judgement Date | January 16, 2015 |
| Court | Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Rakesh Saksena, J. (President)
-
Aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.2010 passed by the District Forum, Jabalpur in case No. 339/2006 complainant/Amarsingh Rajput and opposite party No. 2/Satish Ranjan Dubey have filed the aforesaid appeals. This order shall therefore, govern the disposal of both the appeals. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 17.8.2006 complainant/Amar Singh Rajput filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jabalpur alleging that he was working as a Loco Inspector in Railway Department. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3, approached to him saying that they were builders having land in Sai Colony, Dhanwantari Nagar, Jabalpur. They were developing a colony, if, complainant wished to have a house in the colony he may deposit Rs. 10,000 for advance booking. Opposite parties/builders also assured complainant to arrange for the housing loan from the HDFC Bank. Complainant agreed to the proposal and got a sale deed of a plot measuring 1,500 sq.ft. executed in his favour on 22.3.2004. O.P./Builders on the basis of oral agreement agreed to construct the house at the cost of Rs. 7 lacs. It is alleged that builders got a bank loan of Rs. 7.50 lacs sanctioned for the complainant from HDFC Bank on 16.3.2004. Rs. 5.10 lacs, in installments, were paid by the bank to O.P. I Builders.
-
It is alleged that in November, 2004 O.P./Builders informed that construction of the house was almost ready, therefore, complainant inspected the house, but found that the house was not constructed as per map. When complainant suggested modifications, O.P./builders made demand of additional expenditure. The complainant gave them a cheque of Rs. 50,000. It was a blank cheque. It is alleged that the possession of the house was not given to complainant as per oral agreement and O.P./builders made a demand of Rs. 9.48 lacs on the pretext that cost of the land and construction had escalated.
-
Since out of loan the bank had already made payment of Rs. 5.10 lacs to O.P./builders it started proceeding for recovery of the installments with interest though the complainant had not been given possession of the house. Aggrieved by the conduct of O.P.I. builders, complainant approached to Forum praying that O.P./builders be directed to deliver possession of the house to him at the cost of Rs. 7 lacs as per oral agreement. A further prayer was made that since the amount of Rs. 5.20 lacs had been paid to builders, the interest of the bank loan till the date of giving the possession of the house be ordered to be paid by the builders. Complainant also claimed Rs. 1 lac towards mental agony and an amount of Rs. 1.95 lacs towards rent of the government house in which he was made to live despite construction of the house.
-
Appellant/O.P. No. 2 entered appearance and submitted that the house was constructed as per terms of the agreement. Though the construction of the house was completed, but he received only Rs. 5.10 lacs since further payment was stopped by the bank because of non-payment of the interest and process charges of the loan by the complainant. The cheques issued by complainant to bank were dishonoured. It was further stated that in fact, the cost of the house was Rs. 9.48 lacs out of which Rs. 7.50 lacs was sanctioned as loan by...
To continue reading
Request your trial