w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Tungana Jalaja Kumar v/s Sri Vigneswara Constructions rep. by its proprietor, Sri P. Rama Raju & Another


    Decided On, 10 November 2009

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, MEMBER

    Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Counsel for the Respondents: Sri DVSS Raju

Judgment Text

(R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)

The complainant in whose favour the complaint was allowed, having been dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum in I.A.No.348 of 2007 in E.A.No.113 of 2007 in C.D.No.265 of 2003 has preferred the appeal contending that the order passed by the District forum for cancellation of the sale deed is not sustainable and beyond the scope of the orders of this Commission.

The complainant has filed complaint seeking directions to the opposite party for refund of the amount of Rs.2,27,475/- along with interest thereon in addition to damages and costs.

The District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that it had passed an order in C.D.No.924 of 2001 with a direction to the complainant to approach a civil court.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant has filed appeal F.A.No.1472 of 2004. The State Commission allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the District Forum and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs.2,27,475/- along with interest @ 9% per annum and costs.

The complainant has initiated execution proceedings wherein the respondent/opposite parties have filed I.A.No.348 of 2007 seeking direction to the complainant/decree holder to deliver the original document to them. The District Forum has allowed the petition directing the respondent/complainant to produce the original sale deed before it to deliver the said document to the petitioners/opposite parties subject to the condition that the amount had to be paid to the complainant by the petitioners/opposite parties.

This Commission had directed the J.Dr to refund the amount of Rs.2,27,475/- and inadvertently the direction to return the registered sale deed executed in favour of the D.Hr was not issued as also a condition was not imposed to take steps for cancellation of the sale deed by both the parties. However, there is no prohibition imposed by this commission on the J.Dr in demanding for return of the sale deed as a prerequisite for refund of the amount. In fact it was held by implication that the refund of the amount by the J.Dr has to be made subject to the condition that the D.Hr should return the registered sale deed executed in his favour as also that the D.Hr thereby has to be precluded from making any advantage by the said document. Any lenience in this regard would make the D.Hr enrich against the law. In this context it is essential to refer to the doctrine of unjust enrichment which embodies the concept restoration of property to the person who unjustly loses its.

It may be noted that the doctrine has Socio-jurisprudential concepts:-(i) one party should not be unjustly benefitted at the cost of the other; (ii) a person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably; (iii) if money or valuables have passed from one to the other which ex aequo et bono ought to be refunded or returned, the Court will direct the refund or return of such property.

In the view of the matter and in the light of the doctrines of equity and unjust enrichment, we hold that the impugned order has been rightly pas

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

sed by the District Forum against the respondent/D.Hr. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the District Forum. Therefore, in the absence of any merits, the appeal fails. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum with costs of Rs.2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.