Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
Mrs. Anjali Deshmukh & Mrs. S.G. Nagarale, Members
C. VARGHESE—Complainant
versus
ANAND DEVELOPERS—Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint No. 275 of 2002—Decided on 22.2.2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Joseph Varghese, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. H.G. Misar, Advocate.
The court applied the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and relevant legal precedents to determine the validity of the complainant's claims for possession, compensation, and escalation charges.
Headnote:
Possession - Flat Booking - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Clause 4(ix) - Kanpur Development Authority v. Smt. Sheela Devi & Ors.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant booked a flat and paid earnest money. The opponent stopped construction and later reduced the area of the flat. Dispute arose over payment, possession, and escalation charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the complainant's claim for possession as per the allotment letter not tenable, directed the opponent to hand over the possession of the reduced area flat, awarded compensation for delay, and denied escalation charges.
Issues: Dispute over possession, area, payment, and escalation charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant's claim for possession as per the original allotment letter was not valid, directed possession of the reduced area flat, awarded compensation for delay, and denied escalation charges based on the Consumer Protection Act and relevant legal precedents.
Final Decision: Complaint partly allowed. Opponent directed to hand over possession of reduced area flat, pay compensation, and costs to the complainant.
Mrs. Anjali Deshmukh, Member—This is the complaint filed by the complainant against the opponents for the possession of her flat. We heard Mr. Joseph Varghese, Advocate for the complainant and Advocate Mr. H.G. Misar for the O.P.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :
Originally the complaint was filed by Mr. A.M. Varghese. After the death of Mr. A.M. Varghese his legal heir was brought on record.
The complainant wanted to purchase a flat. So he approached to O.P. for booking and he booked the flat No. 102, Ist floor admeasuring area of about 965 sq. ft. for the consideration of Rs. 7,49,805 on 30.1.1995. The complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000 as earnest money.
According to complainant at the time of booking of the flat O.P. orally agreed and assured that the construction of the building would be completed within a period of two years and delivery of the flat would be given immediately thereafter on obtaining occupancy certificate. Thenafter O.P. stopped construction work and kept the building incomplete for more than two years. Thereafter O.P. and complainant entered into an agreement dated 5.10.1999 for the flat No. 102, 1st floor admeasuring area bout 696 sq. ft. (built up) in the society known as New Bombay Safalya Co-op. Hsg. Society, Navi Mumbai.
Complainant’s contention is that the O.P. had taken signature of the complainant on a blank agreement, details were filled without the consent and knowledge of the complainant.
The O.P. sent a letter to the complainant dated 5.7.2002 showing the reduced area of flat i.e., instead of 965 sq. ft. it was shown 696 sq. ft. Again O.P. sent letter dated 18.12.2000 for payment of Rs. 18,842 from the complainant. O.P. informed the complainant by letter dated 5.7.2002 that construction of the flat has been completed and complainant should pay Rs. 96,623 towards balance amount and Rs. 1,23,000 towards escalation charges. Thus, total amount of Rs. 2,19,623 was claimed from the complainant.
According to complainant he has already paid excess amount of Rs. 1,75,328 to the O.P. In spite of this excess payment the O.P. further demanded sum of Rs. 1,20,000 towards CIDCO development charges, maintenance, electric connection, water connection and other taxes.
The O.P. had issued a letter dated 5.7.2002 to the complainant to take the possession of the flat. Complainant stated that the flat was not ready with amenities mentioned in the para No. 10 of the complaint and as per the agreement. So he did not take the possession.
After waiting for a long period, the complainant has issued a letter through Advocate dated 15.7.2002 informing that he has paid all instalments and he is not responsible for escalation charges. Thereafter complainant has filed this complaint. The complainant is claiming:
1. To hand over the possession of the flat No. 102 admeasuring area about 965 sq. ft. as per allotment letter, without any defects or shortage in amenities or area as provided in the said agreement dated 30.1.1995.
2. To direct the O.P. to reduce price of the said flat, in proportion to the area of the flat i.e., Rs. 7,49,805 to Rs. 4,77,855 for an area of 696 sq. ft.
3. To award interest @ 24% p.a. on Rs. 1,75,328 being the additional amount paid by the complainant to the O.P.
4. About compensation.
3. O.P. appeared and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing written statement and affidavit. According to O.P. there is no cause of action to file this complaint. Complaint is barred by limitation. According to O.P. he was always willing to perform his part, but complainant had been avoiding to fulfil his part. Complainant did not take the possession of the flat by paying balance amount and raised dispute about less area. O.P. further submitted that after getting the payment from the complainant, he used it in the construction of the building. The contention of the O.P. is that he always tried to complete the construction with quality works and when it was completed the complainant sought time for payi
