M/S. J.P. CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS. vs VISHWAS BHAGOJI GAIKWAD (THROUGH LEGAL 3 HEIRS) SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMT. NIRMALA VISHWAS GAIKWAD, & ORS.

This Revision Petition, by a real estate developer and its partners, is directed against the order dated 16.06.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. A/14/780. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 31.07.2014, passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. CC/05/335. By the said order, while accepting the Complaint filed by late Vishwas Bhagoji Gaikwad, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in failing to deliver the possession of Flat No. 22, 3 rd Floor, Dhankawadi, Pune, within the committed period, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to deliver possession of the said flat to the Complainant on his paying the remaining amount of 63,500/-. The Petitioners were also directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of 10,000/- as compensation for the mental stress and a sum of 2,000/- as costs of litigation.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no substance in the Revision Petition.

It is not in dispute that as per agreement dated 30.05.1996 the flat in question was allotted to the Complainant for a total sale consideration of 1,46,500/-. A sum of 5,000/- was paid by the Complainant as booking amount and the balance amount of consideration was to be paid at different stages of construction, as spelt out in para-3 of the agreement. The possession of the flat was to be delivered to the Complainant on or before 31.12.1996. It is admitted by the Petitioners that a sum of 60,000/- had been received from the Complainant by January, 1997, though the stand of the Complainant was that a sum of 23,000/- had been paid to the Petitioners in cash on 16.08.1996. According to the Complainant, though the Petitioners had stopped construction work at the site, yet by letter dated 15.05.1998 they demanded the balance consideration together with penal interest. Since the Petitioners had failed to maintain the schedule of construction, the Complainant refused to pay the amount as demanded by the Petitioners. Not being satisfied with the response by the Petitioner to the legal notice issued on behalf of the Complainant, the Complaint, giving rise to the present Revision Petition, came to be filed. During the pendency of the Complaint, the Petitioners sold the flat to a third party. Admittedly, no intimation regarding cancellation of the flat allotted to the Complainant was given to him by the Petitioners.

Taking into consideration the material placed on record and rejecting the plea raised on behalf of the Petitioners that the possession of the flat was not delivered to the Complainant as he had failed to pay the balance amount, the District Forum came to the conclusion that without even informing the Complainant about the cancellation of the allotment and selling the same to a third party, the Petitioners had indulged in unfair trade practice and were also deficient in service in not delivering the possession of the flat within the stipulated time.

As noted above, the said finding has been affirmed by the State Commission by the order impugned in this Revision Petition.

On a pointed query, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has candidly admitted that there is no material on record to show that before selling the flat to a third party, any notice was issued to the Complainant, informing him that in the event of any default on his part, in making the payment of the balance amount, the flat shall be cancelled.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, with costs, quantified at 10,000/-.

At this juncture, it is pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant that the cheques, issued by the Petitioners towards the costs imposed earlier, have not been issued in the correct name. Let the correct particulars be furnished by Counsel for the Complainant to Counsel for the Petitioners during the course of the day to enable them to comply with the directions already issued in the matter.

Since the Revision Petition stands dismissed, the amount deposited by the Petitioners in terms of order dated 11.07.2016 shall be refunded to them along with interest accrued, if any.