IMPORTANT POINT
Non-execution of the Sale Deed by Respondent in favour of the appellant sufficiently indicates that total amt. of consideration was not received by the Respondent.

ORDER

Pukhraj R.Bora President—Original complainant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by some part of the judgment and order passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolhapur in consumer complaint no.CC/15/225 on 19/01/2017. Appellant had preferred the said complaint against respondent alleging that though appellant had paid the entire amount of consideration towards purchase of the subject flat, respondent had failed in executing the Sale Deed/Deed of Apartment in favour of the appellant. It was therefore the prayer of the appellant in the complaint before the Learned District Commission that the respondent be directed to execute Deed of Sale and/or Deed of Apartment. Appellant had also claimed compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the mental agony suffered by her because of the inaction on the part of respondent.

2. Respondent had resisted the claim so made by the appellant-complainant by filing his written statement. It was his contention in the written statement that he had not received the entire amount of consideration amounting to Rs.10,86,000/-. It was his further contention that out of payments made by the appellant-complainant, she had taken back the amount of Rs.2,05,000/-, since she was in urgent need of the said amount. It was his further contention that the appellant- complainant did not pay the said amount. It was the further case of the respondent-opponent that the appellant-complainant had executed an agreement acknowledging receipt of the said amount of Rs.2,05,000/-. It was his further contention that towards repayment of the said amount, appellant had also handed over two cheques duly signed by her. It was his further contention that on request of appellant, he did never tender the said cheques for collection and was believing that the complainant will definitely repay that amount.

3. In support of her complaint, complainant had placed on record all the 12 receipts evidencing the payment totalling to Rs.10,86,000/-. She had also placed on record copy of the notice sent by her before filing of the complaint. The respondent had placed on record 1) copy of Agreement of Sale dated 05/03/2007 duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar 2) Agreement dated 21/03/2007, whereby the complainant had acknowledged the receipt of Rs.2,05,000/- from him. 3) Possession receipt dated 20/03/2009 4) the cheques bearing nos.033856 and 033857 one for Rs.1 lakh and another for Rs.1,05,000/-.

4. The Learned District Commission after having considered the evidence brought before it, partly allowed the consumer complaint of the present appellant. The following order was passed by the Learned District Commission.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order complainant has preferred the present appeal.

6. At the outset it is to be noted that the respondent has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Learned District Commission, whereby he has been directed to execute Deed of Sale and/or Deed of Apartment in favour of the complainant by accepting an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- from her and to pay the compensation as has been directed in the said order. Appeal is filed by the original complainant being aggrieved by the part of the order, more particularly, the order directing the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- to the respondent.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that despite the fact that the respondent has candidly admitted receipt of the entire consideration amount of Rs.10,86,000/- and though the receipts in that regard were produced on record, the Learned District Commission has wrongly reached to the conclusion that the appellant/complainant had obtained a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- from the respondent and did not repay the said amount. Learned counsel submitted that the Learned District Commission has grossly erred in giving such direction