IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional jurisdiction - Where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra—This revision petition under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails order dated 12.10.2009 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (in short, ‘State Commission’) dismissing First Appeal No.469 of 2008.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent in response to an advertisement by the petitioner, who is a colonizer and builder, booked a plot in Nehru Nagar, Rajnandgaon on 15.09.1999 by depositing Rs 5,000/-. He thereafter paid Rs 24,000/- through 12 monthly installments of Rs 2,000/- and another lumpsum installment of Rs 20,000/- on 20.04.2002. However, as no sale deed was executed, the respondent issued a legal notice and thereafter filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (in short, ‘District Forum’). The petitioner contends that the respondent failed to comply with the conditions of the booking and defaulted in payment of installments resulting in the cancellation of booking on 26.05.2002 with forfeiture of deposited amount. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent. The petitioner approached the State Commission in appeal which came to be dismissed. This order is impugned before us.

3. We have heard the submissions of both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records carefully.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the State Commission erred in overlooking the fact that the respondent had paid his last installment in 2002 and gave the legal notice in 2007 after 5 years. He has also argued that the complaint dated 08.02.2008 was also barred by limitation and the District Forum should not have allowed it. It was also argued that the State Commission erred in overlooking the fact that the issue of a legal notice does not create any fresh cause of action. It was argued that as the respondent’s allotment was cancelled on the ground of default in making payments, there was no deficiency in service and hence the orders of the fora below were illegal and liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the petitioner had advertised the sale of plots measuring 1500 sq ft at a cost of Rs 60,000/- with a schedule of payment in installments. The petitioner allotted him plot no. C 34. The fixing of the price of the plot at a cost of Rs 1,20,000/- was not disclosed in the advertisement nor was a time limit prescribed for payment according to the respondent. It was stated that only a balance of Rs 11,000/- remained to be paid and the District Forum had ordered that this sum be deposited with interest at 9% p.a. from 20.04.2002, the date the last installment of Rs 20,000/- was paid. It is denied that any letter dated 26.05.2002 from the petitioner directing forfeiture and cancellation of booking on the ground of default in making 3 consecutive payments was received. It is also argued that there was no such condition for forfeiture. The respondent argued that he had taken action to pay the balance Rs 11,000/- with interest amounting to Rs 18,565/- by way of a Banker’s cheque dated 17.02.2010 which was refused by the petitioner who refunded it on 04.03.2010. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC) to argue that the cause of action is still continuing and on Premier Homes Vs. Oliver Archibald Aranha & Anr. (2010) CPJ 16 (NC) where this Commission held that the cause of action is from the date of issue of legal notice. It is contended that since the plot had been allotted to him and the petitioner refused to accept the payment, he would continue to be a ‘consumer’ under the Act as held by this Commission in Commissioner, Municipal Council, Aabu-Parvat & Ors., vs Himmat Mal Tailor II (2009) CPJ 218 (NC). On the issue of the price, it is argued per this Commission’s order in AP Hou