SANJAY VITHAL RAO S/O VITHALRAO ANANDRAO BHOSLE Vs. M. NAGOOR RAO AND 4 ORS. S/O HAZARATHIAH AND OTHER PROP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 15.10.2012, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 844/2011, M. Nagoor Rao v. Sanjay Vithalrao Bhosale and Ors., vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Medak, dated 26.07.2011, in Consumer Complaint No. 40/2010, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside.

(2.) The facts of the case as stated in the consumer complaint are that the petitioner/complainant Sanjay Vithal Rao Bhosale approached the opposite party (OP-1) builder, M. Nagoor Rao for purchase of a residential flat in the residential complex, built over plot no. 86 to 90 in survey no. 802, 806 and 807 and entered into an agreement with him for the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 15,45,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards cost of car parking, transformer, Manjira water and lift etc. The complainant paid Rs. 1.5 lakhs for the said flat no. G-11, Ground Floor, built up area 1030 sq. ft. towards advance sale consideration at the time of entering into agreement and subsequently approached the OP-2, State Bank of India for sanction of housing loan of Rs. 13 lakhs. It has been alleged that the Bank sanctioned the said loan and released the amount of Rs. 13 lakhs on different dates, although the said flat had not been completed, in collusion with the OP-1 builder, without verifying the legality and authenticity of the documents. The agreement of sale as stated in the complaint had been entered vide number 11072 of 2008 on 11.06.2008 for a sale consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs. Subsequently, the sale deed was also registered on 30.07.2008 vide document number 11073 of 2008, showing the sale consideration as Rs. 5 lakhs. It is alleged that the figure of Rs. 5 lakhs was then changed to Rs. 14,90,000/- by tampering the record, even though the stamp duty had been paid for Rs. 5 lakhs only. The complainant alleged that the OP-1 had executed the agreement dated 11.06.2008 for finished flat, even though he had collected an amount of Rs. 14,50,000/- including Rs. 13 lakhs from the Bank. In this way, the OP-1 had collected an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs in excess, which should be paid back to him and credited to his loan account with the Bank.

(3.) It is further alleged that the area of the said flat on measurement was only 900 sq. ft., although the OP-1 had mentioned that the flat was measuring 1030 sq. ft. Further, the OP-1 had not provided the Manjira water and also not marked the area for car parking. Moreover, as per the agreement, the OP-1 was supposed to complete the construction within 15 months and on account of non-completion, the complainant had paid interest amounting to Rs. 2,49,507/- for 24 months and was also forced to stay in a rented premises for ten months with a rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The complainant also alleged that the OP-1 had erected a transformer outside the balcony of the complainant's corridor, which had resulted in the reduction of the price of the flat by 25%. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking the following reliefs:-