IMPORTANT POINT
There can be no corresponding accountability without payment of consideration.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 21.09.2016 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.660 of 2005.

2. The brief facts as per the Petitioner/Complainant are that the Petitioner had purchased a plot No.17 on 31.12.2002 from one Jagdish Bhatia for Rs.1,00,000/- and made a contract with the Respondent/Opposite Party in writing on a stamp paper of Rs.50/-for the construction of a house upon it. The Petitioner had paid cash of Rs.1,40,000/- to the Respondent and thereafter Rs.40,00,000/- for construction of house. However, the Respondent did not construct the house as per the sanctioned map and did not hand over the possession of it within six months. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum with the following prayers ; request to refund him the excess amount of Rs.1,54,963/- with interest @ 2% from 01.09.2003 till final payment, direct the Respondent to construct the stair case as per the map and to provide him the cost of digging a well after deciding the expenditure along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- with receipt of each payment, for not constructing the house in time as per the map, taking more amount than the contract and giving false notices and causing mental and physical harassment.

3. Respondent contested the Complaint by filing the written statement stating that establishing the allegations could not be adjudicated before the Forum as also the Petitioner is not a ‘consumer’ and he has filed a false complaint. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- claimed to have been paid to Shri Bhatiya for purchase of plot was actually paid by the Respondent to Sh. Bhatiya. The payment of Rs.1,40,000/-in cash on 31.12.2002 was false. The contract had many blanks which were used by the Petitioner to make false entries to file the false Complaint. The Respondent further submitted that he had entered into contracts to construct houses with many more persons on the same day along with the Petitioner. In case of all such persons, he had paid the cost of the purchase of plots for them to Shri Bhatiya, owner of layout. He had contracted to construct the houses by taking a profit of 10% for supervision and engineering works. He constructed the house of the Petitioner within time and also constructed the additional structure as per the request of the Petitioner. The stair-case was changed as per the request of the Petitioner and an additional room was constructed below it. The Petitioner’s house was completed and he was required to pay him an additional sum of Rs.3,25,037/- which he should pay and take the possession of his house. Further, Respondent has constructed 20 such houses and of which possession has been taken and accounts settled. However, the Petitioner has filed a false complaint by supressing facts and by not taking possession by settling the account.

4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Budlana (For short, ‘District Forum’) vide its order dated 24.02.2005 while dismissing the Complaint held as under;

“In such circumstances, we are having no option but to give decision whether points raised in the complaint by applicant are proved within the diameter of law? And in said proceeding whether non-applicant committed deficiency in service. In the said matter it has been considered the application filed by applicant along with documents, evidence, documents filed by non-applicants, evidence so also written arguments filed by both the parties. We have also read the Judgments of various States Commissions given in the written arguments by applicant as a reference, however, though judgments are not applicable to the present proceeding. We ordered that, considering the complete situation non-applicant has not committed any deficiency in service. Therefore in such circumstances there is no other option before us that too dismiss the complai