Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
SOFTWARE ENGINEERS EMPLOYEES HOUSING AND WELFARE ASSOCIATION - Appellant
Versus
SRINIVAS PUDU - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2092 of 2015.(Against The Order Dated 15.09.2014. In Appeal No. 51 of 2013 of The State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on : 19-04-2016
Mr. Akanksha Mehra, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Y. Suresh Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent
Burden of proof in establishing payments and contractual obligations in housing project disputes.
Headnote:
Delay in Filing Revision Petition - Housing Project Dispute - C.C. No.93 of 2010, F.A.S.R. No.5918 of 2012 - The court discussed the delay in filing the revision petition due to the change in the office address of the petitioner Society and the receipt of the impugned order. The court found that the complainant failed to prove the alleged payment of Rs. 5.5 lakhs by way of two bearer cheques, and consequently, directed the petitioner Society to refund a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- only to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date on which the said payment was made.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant had booked a residential villa with the petitioner in a housing project, paid a total sum of Rs. 7 lakhs, and sought refund when the possession was not delivered as promised.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to prove the alleged payment of Rs. 5.5 lakhs by way of two bearer cheques and directed the petitioner Society to refund a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- only to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date on which the said payment was made.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant had paid Rs. 7 lakhs as claimed or only Rs. 1.5 lakhs as claimed by the petitioner Society.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant failed to prove the alleged payment of Rs. 5.5 lakhs by way of two bearer cheques, and consequently, became entitled to refund of only Rs. 1.5 lakhs with interest.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner Society to refund a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- only to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date on which the said payment was made.
ORDER
Mr. Justice V.K. Jain Presiding Member—This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 15.9.2014 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and the petitioners were directed to refund a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. Since there is a delay of 215 days in filing the revision petition, I.A. No 5487 of 2015 seeking condonation of the said delay has been filed. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition has been opposed by the respondent/complainant.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The application dated 14.3.2016 to the extent it explains the delay in filing the revision petition, reads as under:-
"2. That it is submitted that at the time of filing of C.C. No.93 of 2010, the office of Software Engineers Employees Housing and Welfare Association situated at Flat No.ANI/06/02, Block-37, Rain tree Park, Malaysian Township, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Subsequently the office of Software Engineers Employees Housing and Welfare Association has been shifted to Flat No.102, Block-B-43, S.B.R.T (F), Rain tree Park, near "D" Mart, Malaysian Township, Kukatpally, Hyderabad from 14.8.2012.
3. That the then Secretary A. Sreenivas Reddy has filed counter affidavit and chief affidavit in C.C. No.93 of 2010 before the learned District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District by mentioning his residential address i.e. 1A-403, SMR Vinay Acropolis, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District. Further, that the then Secretary A. Sreenivas Reddy has filed counter in I.A. No.2475 of 2012 in F.A.S.R. No.5918 of 2012 before the Hon'ble State Commission. In the said counter affidavit, the Secretary has mentioned his residential address i.e. 1A-403, SMR Vinay Acropolis, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District.
4. That the complainant Mr. Srinivas Pudu also aware about the shifting of office of the petitioner herein from old address to new address.
5. That it is most respectfully submitted that it transpires from a bare perusal of the impugned order and other orders passed by the Hon'ble State Commission that the counsel for the petitioners herein was not aware about the listing of the matter and also about the pronouncement of the impugned order on 15.9.2014. That the petitioners were not aware about the impugned order and since the counsel of the petitioners also did not know about the pronouncement of the same, it was not conveyed to the petitioners as well. True copies of the orders dated 7.7.2014, 15.7.2014, 18.7.2014, 12.9.2014 and 15.9.2014 passed by the Hon'ble A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad in F.A. No.51 of 2013 are annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-1 (COLLY).
6. It is submitted that it appears that the State Commission has sent the order copy to old address of Software Engineers Employees Housing and Welfare Association. The State Commission did not send the copy of the order to the address mentioned in the counter affidavit of the then Secretary or the new address of Association.
7. It is submitted that by the time of passing of the order, the Society has elected a new executive committee. Accordingly new Secretary was elected by name Uday Kumar Chava.
8. It is submitted that the Association came to know about the passing of order by State Commission on 17.5.2015, when one Manas, who is one of the Member and the owner of the old Address of Association office, has sent email to the then Secretary. It is further submitted that after passing of the impugned order dated 15.9.2014, no certified copy was ever received by the petitioners from the Hon'ble State Commission as per the procedure.
9. It is submitted that immediately he informed the present secretary and present secretary has contacted his counsel and requested him to get the order copy from the State Commission. To the instructions of Secretary, his counsel filed copy application on 21.5.2
