DATTA KUNDLIK VARGHUDE Vs. SURESH BANECHAND RUNWAL
LAWS(NCD)-2020-8-13
NCDRC
Decided on August 28,2020

Datta Kundlik Varghude Appellant
VERSUS
Suresh Banechand Runwal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER , J. - (1.) The First Appeal No.823 of 2016 has been filed by the complainants against the order dated 26.04.2016 and First Appeal No.851 of 2016 has been filed by the opposite parties against the same impugned order dated 26.04.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short 'the State Commission') in Complaint Case No.CC/14/24.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainants have booked a 3BHK flat no. 304 on 3rd floor in B Tower building on 07.10.2011 being developed by the OPs as Shamit Octozone for a total consideration of Rs.35,51,000/-. The complainants took a housing loan of Rs.28,43,697/- and the same was sanctioned by Deutsche Bank vide its letter dated 27.03.2012. The complainants have deposited a sum of Rs.37,54,657/- towards the sale consideration.
(3.) As per clause 11 of the agreement to sell which was executed between the parties on 24.02.2012, the possession of the said flat was required to be handed over within 18 months from the date of agreement i.e. by 23.08.2013, but OPs failed to do so. The complainants sent a legal notice dated 14.10.2014 to OPs to refund a sum of Rs.41,85,878/- and intimated about the cancellation of the booking of the said flat, but OPs did not respond to the notice. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission.;


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