Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between a construction company and a respondent who sought to purchase an office room in a building under construction. The respondent initially agreed to purchase the room for Rs.9,00,110/- but later the parties settled on a price of Rs.7,75,000/-. The respondent made a partial payment of Rs.5,00,000/- but did not complete the payment, leading to the company not handing over possession. The respondent filed a complaint with the District Consumer Redressal Forum, claiming compensation for losses due to non-possession. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, stating the respondent had not proven full payment. The State Commission remanded the case back to the District Forum, which again found insufficient evidence from the respondent. The National Commission dismissed the company's revision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the respondent had deviated from his original complaint and failed to provide evidence for his claims, particularly regarding the alleged cash payment of Rs.4,00,000/-. The court restored the District Forum's decision, emphasizing the importance of written agreements and the burden of proof on the respondent. The appeal was allowed, and the decisions of the National and State Commissions were set aside, with the District Forum's order reinstated.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Possession of Property - Claim for Possession - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections Not mentioned - The respondent claimed possession of an office room based on alleged payments made, but failed to establish the full payment of the agreed purchase price as per the written agreement. The court held that the respondent's evidence contradicted the written terms, leading to dismissal of his claim (Paras 14-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent had established his claim for possession and compensation against the appellant under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decisions of the National and State Commissions, and restored the District Forum's order, requiring the respondent to pay the balance amount to obtain possession.
Law Points
- Consumer protection
- Evidence admissibility
- Written agreements
- Payment obligations
- Burden of proof
