The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that legal action, such as filing an FIR is necessary to support the claim of fake receipts.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant booked a flat with Shanti Nagar Grih Nirman/builder and paid the deposit for the same. Later, the dealer changed the plot, reducing the total area to 10,000 sq. ft. Despite paying Rs.1,60,812 for the plot, the sale was not registered, which constituted a deficiency of service. After adjustments from another plot, the complainant's father was willing to pay the remaining balance, but the dealer failed to register the plot. Due to the father's illness, he requested a draft sale deed, but the dealer mentioned a different plot location. The father refused, and he passed away before the registration. As legal heirs, the complainant sent notices to the dealer, requesting the sale deed execution, but received no response. The dealer had also mentioned vastu issues and objections from other members. Despite receiving 80% of the plot payment, the dealer took no action, leading the complainant to file a case with the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint to provide an alternative flat to the complainant and pay Rs. 3000 for mental tension along with Rs. 1000 as cost of complaint. Dissatisfied with the District Forum's order, the complainant appealed before the State Commission of Madhya Pradesh, which dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Builder
The builder argued that the complainant only paid Rs. 15,156 and Rs. 4,000 through two cheques, and no further payments were made. Due to the lack of payments, no allotment letter or share certificate was issued to the complainant's father. The builder claimed that the documents presented by the complainant were false and not supported by valid evidence. Additionally, the receipts submitted mentioned a different plot, which was neither applied for nor allotted to the complainant. The builder further pointed out discrepancies in a receipt with no date, but a date was added in the related complaint. To support its stance, the builder cited various Supreme Court judgments.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that after reviewing the case and relevant judgments, including the Samruddi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd., the complaint was within the limitation period and the State Commission was wrong in dismissing it. The complainant argued that after the initial cheque payments, further payments were made in cash, for which receipts were issued by the builder under the name 'Vrindavan Dham - the Garden Estate.' The receipts were consistent with the address mentioned on previous documents, and there was no reason to doubt their authenticity. The Commission referenced a similar case, Shanti Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Jugal Kishore, where the State Commission had rejected the builder's claims about forged receipts. The builder's arguments regarding different addresses and fake receipts were dismissed, with the Commission noting that the builder was using multiple receipt books, as pointed out in an audit report. The audit also supported the genuineness of the receipts in question. The Commission highlighted that no legal action, such as filing an FIR, was taken by the builder against the complainant, which reinforced the credibility of the receipts. The judgment in Jugal Kishore's case was also upheld, and since the facts were similar, the Commission set aside the State Commission's order and remanded the case for fresh disposal, to be concluded within three months.
Case Title: Babulal Gupta Vs. Shanti Nagar Grih Nirman Sahakari Sansthamaryadit
Case Number: R.P. No. 1309/2014