Decided on August 28,2020

R.K.SINGHAL Appellant
M/S. Sudradh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Respondents


- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant R.K. Singhal challenging the order dated 05.08.2015 in consumer complaint No. CC 01/1474 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai (in short the State Commission).
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that initially, the complainant had booked a flat in the building known as "Sahyadri" on 30.06.1993 for consideration of Rs.6,75,000/- with OP1. Thereafter, OPs issued a fresh letter of intent dated 20.12.1994, allotting Flat no. 301 on the 3rd Floor admeasuring about 1000 Sq. Ft. in the same building for total consideration of Rs.8,30,000/- and took back all the previous documents. For the same purchase, agreement to sell dated 20.12.1995 was executed and subsequently, the Deed of Confirmation was executed on 11.02.1997. The complainant has made the payment of Rs.8,20,000/- towards the total sale consideration. As per clause 18 of the agreement dated 20.12.1995 OP promised to deliver the possession of the said flat on 08.06.1998 but OP failed to do so. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 18.12.1999 to OP to pay a sum of Rs.18,27,807/-. OP sent a reply to the said notice on 07.03.2000 raising false defence and stating that the possession of the flat would be handed to the complainant within couple of months. Aggrieved by the act of OP, the complainant filed the complaint before State Commission. State Commission vide its order dated 05.08.2015 allowed the complaint with no cost. State Commission directed OP1 to refund a sum of Rs.39,45,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of issue of this order.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the original complaint was filed In the year 2001 for refund of the amount of Rs.8,20,000/- paid to the opposite party, however, an application was given by the complainant for amendment in the complaint on 9th June 2015. This amendment was that the complainant now wanted to take the possession of the flat as the building had become ready in the year 2014. The State Commission has allowed this amendment in its final order, however, the possession of the flat has not been ordered. The State Commission has only granted the compensation as asked for in the amended prayer. The learned counsel stated that as the complaint was amended and amended complaint has been decided by the State Commission, the possession should have been ordered to be delivered by the opposite party to the complainant. The present appeal has been filed for directing the opposite party to hand over the possession. The learned counsel stated that out of the original consideration of Rs.8,30,000/- in the year 1993, the complainant has already paid Rs.8,20,000/- to the opposite party. If the total consideration has been paid by the complainant to the opposite party, there should be no reason why the opposite party should not transfer the possession and title in favor of the complainant.;

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