Back
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No. 1352/2009.
Smt. Ramila,
w/o Shri Lalit Kumar Shah,
107, Tilak Nagar Extension,
Indore (M.P.).
…. APPELLANT.
VERSUS
1. Kashta Nivarak Grih Nirman Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit, 15 -16, Dhenu Market,
Indore (M.P.).
2. Indore Development Authority,
7, Racecourse Road, Indore (M.P.).
…. RESPONDENTS.
FA No. 2080/2009.
Kasht Nivaran Grih Nirman Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit,
Registered No.D.R./I.D.R./225
Dated 14.07.80 through
President Ramesh
s/o Shri Bachchulal ji Surekha.
…. APPELLANT.
VERSUS
1. Smt. Ramila
w/o Shri Lalit Kumar Shah,
107, Tilak Nagar, Indore.
2. Indore Development Authority,
7, Racecourse Road, Indore (M.P.).
…. RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE DR. (SMT) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER
-
2 -
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Deepesh Joshi, learned counsel for the complainant / appellant
In Appeal No.1352/2009.
Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 / appellant
In Appeal No.2080/2009.
Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for therespondent no.2.
O R D E R
(Passed on 25 /01/2021)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Smt) Monika
Malik, Member :
Both these appeals arise out of the order dated 23.6.2009 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (for short the ‘District
Commission’) in CC No.1330/2007 whereby the opposite party no.1 has been directed to
refund a sum of Rs.55,560/- obtained towards cost of the plot, from 29.12.2007 with
interest @8% p.a. to the complainant. An award of Rs.2,000/- as compensation with
Rs.1,000/- as cost has also been passed in complainant’s favour.
2.
Heard.
3.
Challenging the aforesaid order both the complainant and opposite party
no.1 have filed these appeals.
-
3 -
4.
Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the District Commission
has erred in passing the impugned order giving directions regarding refund of the amount
deposited by the complainant with the opposite party no.1. He argued that the
complainant deserves to be given a plot in the colony being developed by opposite party
no.1.
5.
On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party no.1 argued that the
District Commission has erred in making an observation that a sum of Rs.55,560/- was
deposited by the complainant with them. The receipts produced by the complainant
before the District Commission were fake. The aforesaid receipts were got transferred
by the complainant, in her name. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-
aside, when the factual position is that the complainant had deposited only a sum of
Rs.1550/ with the opposite party no.1.
6.
The parties had earlier approached the Hon’ble National Commission and
it was alleged that the question involved is regarding fabrication of the receipts produced
by the complainant and that preliminary enquiry was held by the competent authority
under the Co-operative Societies Act. The Hon’ble National Commission remanded the
matter back to the State Commission regarding consideration of the relevant record
including the enquiry report and for subsequently giving a finding whether the amount
claimed to have been deposited by the complainant i.e. Ramila Shah was actually
deposited and credited with the opposite party no.1 to the tune of Rs.55,560/- as alleged.
It was also directed to consider regarding the question of allotment with respect to the
-
4 -
complainant. The appeals were directed to be decided afresh by considering all the
aspects with adequate reasons.
7.
Learned counsel for both the parties made a submission that the factual
position in the matter can come out only after consideration of the enquiry report. They
requested that the matter deserves to be remitted to the District Comission regarding
obtaining the findings with regard
