IMPORTANT POINT
Parties have to abide by terms of agreement.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 27.2.2008 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1944/2006 – Sardar V.P. Singh & Ors. v. Smt. Sujata Meshram by which, while partly allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld, but compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by District Forum was set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondents entered into tripartite agreement with OP No. 2 & 3/petitioners for construction of duplex house for Rs. 5,60,000/-. It was further submitted that complainant deposited Rs. 4,67,000/- with OPs. OP also executed sale deed in favour of complainant on 6.11.2003 of the land on which house was to be constructed. It was further submitted that in sale deed Rs.2,47,000/- has been shown as sale consideration out of which, cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- was given and OP told that this cheque will be returned back on payment of Rs.5,60,000/- as cost of construction. It was further submitted that inspite of repeated requests, cheque was not returned and construction has also not been completed. It was further submitted that complainant took loan of Rs.4,00,000/- for payment. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint and submitted that complainant firstly purchased plot and then entered into agreement for construction of house for a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/-. It was denied that cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- was to be returned back. It was further submitted that if complainant is ready to pay Rs. 2,47,000/- plus Rs.5,60,000/-, OP is ready to complete construction work and deliver possession and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to transfer possession of duplex house on receipt of Rs. 97,000/- from the complainant and further awarded interest on Rs. 4,67,000/- at saving bank rate from 10.8.2004 till possession and further awarded Rs. 30,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order deleted cost of Rs.30,000/- against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and respondent no. 2 in person and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complainant was to pay Rs.2,47,000/- for land and Rs. 5,60,000/- for construction and OP has made payment of only Rs.4,63,000/-. Learned District Forum committed error in directing to give possession only on payment of Rs.97,000/- and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, on this point, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. Respondent No. 2 supported Counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law which does not call for any interference, hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5. It is not disputed that sale deed of residential plot no. C/22/1 was executed between the complainant and OP No. 3 on 31.10.2003 for Rs.2,47,000/- and later on, tripartite agreement was executed between complainant and OP No. 2 & 3 on 17.11.2003 for construction of duplex house for Rs.5,60,000/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complainant was required to make payment for purchase of land as well as for construction whereas learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that construction cost included cost of plot.

6. Learned District Forum and learned State Commission on the basis of other two sale deeds of duplex houses on the same land entered after disputed agreement for lesser amount from Rs.8,07,000/- observed that complainant was required to pay only Rs.5,60,000/- for cost of construction including