SYED VAJIDALI SANGAMNEHERI vs KHADIJA NURUDDIN BENGALI

THE first appeal and the revision petition arise out of the same proceedings before the State Commission. It is the opposite party builder who is the appellant in the appeal and petitioner in the revision petition. Respondents complainants had filed a complaint alleging that the appellant had agreed to sell them a row house in Devali for a consideration of Rs. 5,17,280/- and they had already paid a sum of Rs. 4,65,000/- by means of cheque and cash. Balance amount was to be payable at the time of handing over the possession. Appellant did not complete the construction and did not hand over possession of completed house to the complainants. They now want their money back. State Commission after going into the merits of the case ordered that the appellant should refund the sum of Rs. 4,65,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 1-6-1992 till payment. Appellant was burdened with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. They were also directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation. Appeal is directed against that order.

IN the proceedings taken in execution by the complainants by order dated 10-6-2000 State Commission granted six weeks time to the appellant to comply with its order dated 20-7-1997. Revision petition is directed against this order. When both these matters were listed before this Commission, order of the State Commission was stayed on 29th September, 2000 till 15-10-2000. Mr. S. K. Sharma learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellant might be in a position to offer flat to the complainants and that complainant to take the flat in settlement of both the cases. This interim stay was continued. On one date i.e. 28-11-2000 Mr. Sharma Counsel for the appellant said that he might be given liberty to file affidavit stating therein that the flats are ready for delivery and the respondents are avoiding to take the possession. However, it was contended by the counsel for the respondents that flats were not ready for delivery. Matter was adjourned for the appellants to file affidavit as stated by their counsel. Again on 16-1-2001 matter was adjourned for Mr. Sharma to take instructions from appellant. On 13-3-2001 we recorded following order: "Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate has brought on record an affidavit in First Appeal No. 230/2000 stating that the flats are complete for occupation. This is being controverted by Mr. O. P. Gupta. In these circumstances, we request the District Forum, Nasik to send a report if the flats, in question, are fit for occupation and if not what further work is required to make them completely habitable. The flats are situated in village Bhagur, Taluka and District Nasik (Maharashtra). A copy of the affidavit filed by Mr. S. K. Sharma shall also be sent alongwith the order. The report may be submitted within four weeks. The District Forum may appoint a Commissioner for this purpose whose fees and expenses shall be borne by the Appellant. Adjourned to 3rd May, 2001. This order may be communicated to the District Forum by speed post."

Report of the District Forum has since been received. Alongwith this, there is report of Mr. U. G. Agaskar, Architect which is dated 18-6-2001 wherein he had pointed out various deficiencies and said that the units could be habitable once the defects as mentioned in the report are cleared. It is clear that the houses are not ready and as of today not habitable. In spite of notice petitioner did not care to be present at the site at the time of inspection. Therefore, it appears on the wrong premise matter has been adjourned on various dates at the instance of the petitioner. Since the petitioner could not deliver the flat, the only alternative left with the State Commission was to direct refund of the amount paid with interest. We see no ground to interfere in the order of the State Commission and dismiss both the appeals and revision petitions.