Vinayak Bhagwan Khavnekar vs Deven Dhondi Dholam & Anr

This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Maharashtra dated 06.12.2016 passed in Appeal No.A/16/297.

Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner / complainant filed consumer complaint against the

respondent / opposite party alleging deficiency in service in respect of delivery of possession and execution of sale deed pertaining to the residential

flat no. A-203, Asha Park, Gavandiwada, Bharad-Malvan booked by him in the development project undertaken by the opposite party.

The complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum concerned and following relief was granted:

The complaint of the complainant has been sanctioned partially.

The Respondents should register the sale-deed agreement in respect of Flat No. A-203 as agreed in the contract to sale agreement.

In terms of clause No. 33 of the commencement certificate dated 22/04/2010 granted by the Malvan Nagar Parishad and condition No. 8 of the

contract to sale agreement, the Respondents should accept the amount as per the area of the flat and make available the drinking water to the

complainant.

The orders are passed that the Respondents should pay the sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental and physical torture and harassment

and Rs.10,000/- for expenses incurred for filing the complaint.

If the above orders are not complied with by the respondents within 45 days from the date of receipt of the Order the complainant can take action

under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

If the orders are complied with or not by the both the parties after 45 days i.e. on 08/03/2016, they should present them before the Dist. Forum in

terms of circular no. 2014/3752 dated 5 th July, 2014 and inform the Forum whether the orders are complied with or not.

The petitioner / complainant being aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded to him approached the State Commission in Appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation. The State Commission on re-appreciation of evidence and the evidence found that compensation of Rs.25,000/-

awarded by the District Forum for physical and mental harassment and Rs.10,000/-towards cost of litigation was inadequate. The State Commission

accordingly modified the order and enhanced the compensation for physical and mental harassment from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.55,000/-. The petitioner not

being satisfied with the aforesaid compensation has filed instant revision petition.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that order of the State Commission is not sustainable because while considering the quantum of

compensation, the State Commission has failed to consider that because of non delivery of possession of subject flat, the petitioner who had no other

arrangement of his residence had to stay at Swami Ramanand Shastri Charitable Trust, Awaas Sewa Sadan and H M Karunanand Senior Citizen

Home and for the said stay, he had paid sum of Rs.75,300/-.

Argument of the counsel for the petitioner appears to be attractive on the first look but is without any merit. According to Builder-Buyer Agreement

executed between the parties on 21.09.2010, the opposite party had agreed to deliver possession of the subject flat to the petitioner / complainant

within 18 months i.e. by end of March 2012. From the perusal of photocopies of receipts of payments made to above mentioned old age homes, it

would be seen that four receipts pertain to the contribution made by the petitioner to Swami Ramanand Shastri Charitable Trust pertains to the year

2010. Therefore, those receipts cannot be taken into consideration. Similarly, perusal of the receipts purportedly issued by Awas Sewa Sadan would

show that those receipts are in respect of maintenance charges of the room as also the meal charges. The meal charges to my opinion cannot be

considered for calculating the amount of damage suffered by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, order of the State Commission awarding

compensation to the extent of Rs.55,000/- is based on rational consideration of evidence and cannot be faulted.

In view of the reasons given above, I do not find merit in the revision petition. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.