Judgment:
The matter appears to have chequered history. A complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum on 29.09.2003 with the allegation that inspite of deposit of the entire amount on different dates the concerned plots so booked by the complainant has not been sold to him. The District Forum vide ex-parte order dated 07.01.2004 directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.93,100/- with interest to the complainant. However, the State Commission while partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellant remanded the matter back to the District Forum vide order dated 29.03.2005 to decide the dispute after hearing both the parties. The District Forum again vide order dated 12.01.2006 while allowing the complaint directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 1,23,100/- with interest from the date the amount deposited by the complainant on three different dates. Hence the present appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plots in dispute had already been sold and registered in the name of daughter of the complainant as per instructions way back in November 2000 itself. It has further been submitted that appellant no.1 had already resigned from the Directorship of the concerned companies in the year 1998 itself and as such he has no personal responsibility for sale of registration of the disputed plots. Since the entire execution has been made by the Director of one of the promoty companies, the present appellants cannot be held responsible for refund of the amount deposited by the complainant to the companies at the relevant time. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that the subsequent sale and registration as alleged by the appellants has been made by the Director of one of the companies independently after receiving the entire payment by the persons in favour of whom the sale was executed and duly registered. However, the appellants were liable to make the payment as deposited by the complainant as mentioned in the complaint.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully gone through the material on record.
It appears that one Agrasen Colony was floated in Churu by three different companies as a joint venture. The respondent/complainant booked two shops i.e. S-42 and S-43 and two plots at D-90 and D-91 after depositing the amount as alleged by the complainant which has also not been disputed by the appellants so far. However, it appears that sale deed of two shops i.e. S-42 and S-43 was executed and registered in the name of daughter of complainant in November 2000 itself whereas plot No. D-90 was sold to one Smt.Meena Saini and plot No. D-91A and D-91B were sold to Smt.Usha Panwar, the daughter of the complainant in November 2003 by one Mr.Sushil Kumar Bajaj, Director of one of the promoter companies i.e. M/s. Ingit Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. As per material available on record and allegations made by the appellant, one of son of the complainant who is also an advocate duly identified the execution of all the above sale deeds. It has also come on record that there has been dispute between the Directors of the three promoter companies in regard to the land of Agrasen Colony and appellant had already resigned from the Directorship from all the three companies including that of M/s.Ingit Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1998 and duly been accepted long back and the above facts have also not been disputed by the complainant.
Be that as it may the respondent/complainant has alleged that all the concerned shops and plots have been sold to the different persons and registered accordingly after payment of all the dues independently to Mr. Sushil Kumar Bajaj,the Director of one of the companies who also alleged that the land in dispute had come under his possession after the settlement and partisan among three different companies who promoted the Agrasen Colony at Churu. However, the date and total amount paid subsequently by the different persons in whose name the sale had been executed and registered have not been mentioned nor any receipt thereof has been submitted on behalf of the respondent/complainant. The relation of the persons in whose name the sale and registry had been made as referred above with the complainant has also not been disputed. It is also not been clarified as to when sale deed of shops had already been executed in 2000 itself then how the complainant from a family of lawyers kept mum till September 2003 when only a complaint had been filed before the Consumer Forum.
Under the circumstances as per material available on record and counter allegations made on behalf of both the sides, since so many disputed questions of facts and law has arisen which can only be decided by the competent court after taking evidence of both the parties. In the present matter as such the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained in the eyes of law more so when all the facts as stated above have already been submitted before the District Forum.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.01.2006 passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent also stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. However, the appellants shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount if any deposited by them before the District Forum in the present appeal.