MAYFAIR HOUSING Vs. DEVENDRA JAGDISH JHA
LAWS(NCD)-2020-6-43
NCDRC
Decided on June 23,2020

Mayfair Housing Appellant
VERSUS
Devendra Jagdish Jha Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Prem Narain, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant Mayfair Housing against the order dated 17.06.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in CC/14/372.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1-3/complainants have filed complaint against opponents for getting possession of flat from opponents alongwith interest on the amount paid on account of delayed possession alongwith cost and compensation. Complainants had booked Flat No.307 admeasuring 590.08 sq.ft. built-up area situated at 3rd floor of building named as "Daffodil" for total consideration of Rs.18,99,886/- with the appellant/opponent no.1 as per suggestion given by respondents Nos.4 & 5 opponent nos.2 and 3. It is the contention of complainants that although they had paid entire amount of sale consideration, the appellant/opponent no.1 has not given possession of flat to them. For payment of sale consideration complainants had obtained loan of Rs.14,30,000/- from respondent No.6/opponent no.4 and opponent no.4 had directly disbursed that amount to opponent no.1. Rest of the amount was paid by complainants to opponent no.1 either by cash or by cheque. In respect of that flat, opponent no.1 had executed agreement on 08/01/2010. It is the contention of complainants that as opponent no.1 had not given possession of flat to them, they had given notice in that respect to opponent no.1. Opponent no.1 by replying that notice had made claim of additional amount from complainants. It is the contention of complainants that they are not required to pay that amount. Hence, they filed a complaint against opponent no.1 before the State Commission for getting possession of flat from opponent no.1 along with interest on amount already deposited by them with opponent no.1 along with cost and compensation. It is the contention of complainants that opponent no.4 had also disbursed the loan amount in favour of opponent no.1 directly without any authority of complainants. Hence, complainants also claimed compensation for that purpose from opponent no.4. Opponent no.1 contested complaint by filing their reply to oppose the complaint. They admitted that they agreed to sell flat No.307 of Daffodil Building at Virar (West) to complainants. In that respect, they executed agreement in favour of complainants. They admitted that complainants had paid part of sale consideration to them and for balance amount of sale consideration obtained loan from opponent no.4. They admitted that opponent no.4 had given amount of Rs.14,30,000/- to them for sale consideration of flat. However, it is their contention that amount of Rs.76,000/- was outstanding against complainants towards sale consideration and they were also liable to pay amount of Rs.15,000/- for grills and amount of Rs.70,000/- towards VAT. As they had not paid these amounts to them, they had not given possession of flat to the complainants. As such, they have not shown any deficiency in service to complainants and hence, complaint be dismissed against them. Opponent Nos.2 and 3 contested complaint by filing their written version. They have submitted that they are not concerned with the flat which complainants were intending to purchase from opponent no.1. They were not party to sale agreement. Complainants have not paid any amount of sale consideration to them. Hence, they are not liable for handing over possession of flat to complainants or to pay interest to complainants on amount deposited with opponent no.1. Thus, they submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part and hence, complaint be dismissed against them. Opponent No.4 contested the complaint by filing their written version. They submitted that complainants had applied for getting loan from them. They had sanctioned loan of Rs.14,30,000/- to complainants and disbursed this amount to opponent no.1 for complainants as per tradition followed by them in respect of disbursement of loan amount. They further submitted that opponent no.1 has accepted the receipt of amount from opponent no.4. In respect of handing over flat, the dispute is in between complainants and opponent no.1. Hence, they have not committed any deficiency in service towards complainants and therefore, complaint be dismissed against them. The State Commission after hearing the parties decided the complaint vide its order dated 17.06.2019 as under:- "1. Complaint is hereby partly allowed. 2. Opponent no.1 is hereby directed to handover possession of Flat No.307 admeasuring 590.08 sq.ft. built-up area by name Dafodil building situated at Virar (West) to complainants alongwith all necessary documents of building completion certificate, occupation certificate etc. within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. 3. On failure of the same opponent no.1 will have to pay penalty of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) per month to complainants from the date of passing of this order till handing over possession of flat to complainants. 4. Complainants will have to pay amount of Rs.12,336/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Six only) as advance maintenance charges and amount of Rs.76,000/- (Rupees Seventy Six Thousand Only) towards VAT to opponent no.1 at the time of taking possession of flat from opponent no.1. 5. Opponent no.1 is further directed to pay interest to complainants on the amount of sale consideration of Rs.18,99,886/- (Rupees Eighteen lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Six Only) deposited by them @ 9% p.a. from 01/04/2010 till handing over possession of flat to complainants. 6. Opponent no.1 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to complainants jointly along with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) jointly towards this litigation. 7. Opponent no.1 is hereby directed to pay amount of cost and compensation to complainants within a period of one month from passing of this order otherwise they will have to pay interest on this amount @12% p.a. from the date of this order till realization of this amount by complainants. 8. Complaint is dismissed against opponent nos.2,3 and 4. 9. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties."
(3.) Hence, the present appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.