Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Rakesh Saksena, President and Neerja Singh, Members
SATISH RAJAN DUBEY - Appellant
Versus
AMAR SINGH RAJPUT AND OTHERS - Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 1849 of 2010 and 1372 of 2011.
Decided on : 16-01-2015
Ajay Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mohan Chouksey, Advocate, for the Respondent
The court emphasized the application of the SARFAESI Act and the significance of the pending criminal case for forgery and cheating against the builder.
Headnote:
Forgery - Real Estate Dispute - SARFAESI Act - 2, 4, 5, 14, 34 - The court discussed the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and found that the bank did not commit any deficiency in service by closing the disbursement of the remaining loan amount. The court also noted manipulation in the sale agreement and the pending criminal case for forgery and cheating against the builder.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the builder committed forgery in the agreement and demanded more money than the agreed amount. The bank stopped disbursement of the remaining loan amount, and the possession of the house was handed over to the bank under the SARFAESI Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank did not commit any deficiency in service by closing the disbursement of the remaining loan amount. It also noted manipulation in the sale agreement and the pending criminal case for forgery and cheating against the builder.
Issues: Forgery in the agreement, non-payment of loan amount, possession of the house, and jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bank did not commit any deficiency in service and that the possession of the house was rightfully handed over to the bank under the SARFAESI Act. It also noted the pending criminal case for forgery and cheating against the builder.
Final Decision: The appeals were disposed of with a direction to the builder to return the booking amount to the complainant with interest.
ORDER
Rakesh Saksena, 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.
2. 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 parties No. 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 1500 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 instalments, were paid by the bank to O. P. /Builders.
3. 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.
4. 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 instalments with interest though the complainant had not been given possession of the house. Aggrieved by the conduct of O. P. /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.
5. 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 the HDFC Bank and the remaining amount of Rs. 2. 40 lacs was to be paid by complainant himself. Since the payments were not made, the possession of the house was not delivered to complainant. It was also stated that the cheque of Rs. 50,000/- delivered by the complainant was dishonoured for which a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the complainant.
6. Opposite parties No. 1 and 3 submitted that they had been unnecessarily impleaded as party since the work of Sai Builders was being done only by opposite party no. 2.
7. Opposite party no. 4/HDFC Bank was impleaded in the case in the year 2009. According to O. P. No. 4/bank the said loan was repayable
