DINESH J SINGH Vs. RNA BUILDERS
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Dinesh J Singh
Click here to view full judgement.
DHANRAJ KHAMATKAR,MEMBER -
(1.)THIS is a consumer complaint filed on 30.8.2012 by Mr.Dinesh J. Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant' for the sake of brevity) against M/s. RNA Builders (NG), the Opponent No.1 herein and Mr. Narinderpal Gupta, proprietor of M/s. RNA Builders (NG), the Opponent No.2 herein, under the consequential deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents. The complaint is numbered as 205 of 2012. Facts in brief can be summarized as under:
(2.)INITIALLY the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint No.174 of 2010 before the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complaint was heard by the District Forum and thereafter, by an order dated 24.8.2012 the pistrict Forum returned the complaint to the Complainant for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The original complaint was returned to the Complainant on 28.8.2012 and thereafter, present complaint is filed on 30.8.2012.
(3.)IT is the case of the Complainant that he booked a flat bearing No.603, admeasuring 910 sq ft. in built up area (558 sq. ft. carpet area) situated on the sixth floor of 'A' Wing in the building to be constructed by the Opponents as 'NG Sterling' @ Rs.2,625 per sq ft. According to the Complainant out of the total consideration he paid to the Opponents an amount of Rs.2,72,997 on 22.9.2009. It is further contended that on 25.9.2009 an agreement to sale was registered with the Sub -Registrar. Schedule of payment is incorporated on internal page (4) of the agreement dated 25.9.2009. In the agreement for sale total consideration agreed is shown as of Rs.18,20,000. Apart from this at the time of booking an amount of Rs.51,000 was deposited by the Complainant with the Opponents towards Earnest Money and the Opponents have acknowledged receipt of the same by issuing a receipt dated 6.9.2009. The Complainant further states that the Opponents have issued a demand letter dated 21.4.2010 which was received by the Complainant on 23.4.2010 demanding an amount of Rs.1,15,150. The letter was not accompanied with the architect's certificate and the demand was shown towards the plinth work. The Complainant was out of Mumbai during the period from 24.4.2010 to 4.5.2010 and on 5.5.2010 the Complainant visited the site of the proposed building alongwith his relative Mr. Suresh Bhan Singh and found that on the site slab was still not completed. However, the Complainant was ready to make the payment as per letter dated 21.4.2010. The Complainant was asked to visit the head -office of the Opponents. Accordingly, the Complainant contacted the head -office of the Opponents on telephone at which time Mrs. Komal, an employee of the Opponents, refused to accept the payment. On 6.5.2010 the Complainant personally visited the office of the Opponents with a cheque but the Opponents refused to accept the cheque Hence, the Complainant sent the cheque through speed post alongwith covering letter dated 11.5.2010 and also the Complainant showed willingness to pay the interest for the late payment as provided under the agreement.
The Complainant contended that he received a letter dated 5.5.2010 wherein it is stated by the Opponents that on account of non -payment the booking of the flat stands cancelled. It is further stated that if the Complainant wants to save the booking of flat No.603, the Complainant should make payment of entire consideration i.e. Rs.15,47,003 within a period of fifteen days or enter into a fresh agreement at the present prevalent property rates. Further, the Complainant contended that on 20.5.2010 the Complainant received a letter dated 17.5.2010 from the Opponents wherein the Opponents made false contentions and once again cancelled the booking of Flat No. 603.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.