IMPORTANT POINT
Builder cannot be demand any additional amount over and above terms of agreement.

S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member—Advocate Ms. R.R. Lokare files Vakalatnama for respondent No. 1 and files undertaking to file Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.2.

Admit and heard forthwith with the consent of the parties.

This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 31.5.2010 passed in consumer complaint No.402/2008, Mr. Prakash B. Chavan & Anr. v. Mr. Vijay Petamber Mody by District Consumer Forum, Thane.

1. It is a consumer complaint filed by flat purchaser against the builder alleging deficiency in service in respect of delayed possession even though the entire consideration was received by the builder. As per the impugned order, upholding the contention of the complainant, Forum below directed the appellant-builder to handover possession of the flat. Further, ruled out the contention of the appellant/org. OP for claiming additional amount by way of interest on the ground of delayed payment. Also, granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000 to the complainants on the ground of delayed possession and also directed the OP1 appellant herein to accept the charges for maintenance as agreed at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per sq. ft. from March, 2008 to December 2009 and further granted Rs.20,000 as additional compensation and Rs.10,000 as costs of the proceding. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred.

2. Our attention was invited to letter dated 18.1.2008 whereby balance amount of Rs.1,05,626 was demanded by the builder. As per said letter total amount of

Rs. 21,10,900 was due towards purchase price which is admitted by both the parties is as per the agreement. This amount was entirely paid by 25.2.2008 by the flat purchasers. Therefore, certainly no amount towards price of the flat as per contractual terms remained due. Occupation Certificate was obtained by the builder on 12.3.2008. Therefore, as per the statutory requirement also no possession could have been handed over by the builder to the flat purchaser till obtaining Occupation Certificate and relevant to this date, entire purchase price was received by the builder. Therefore, once this Occupation Certificate was obtained and since the purchase price was entirely received by the builder, there was no question to further delay the handing over of the possession. In spite of this, on the ground of non-payment of maintenance charges at the enhanced rate of Rs.3 per sq. ft., which according to the builder, as submitted before us, was collected from other flat purchasers, is a demand which is not proper since as per the contractual terms said amount was payable at the rate of Rs.1.50 per sq. ft. There is no change of terms of contract and in absence thereof, builder cannot ask for maintenance amount at enhanced rate. Therefore, Forum below rightly observed so and given a direction accordingly. There is no direction given about Club House. It is submitted that for Club House, certain amounts are required to be paid by the flat purchasers. But that issue is not before us in the appeal, since there is no direction covering the same. Furthermore, we find no reason to disturb the compensation awarded i.e., amount of Rs.1,00,000 and Rs.20,000 since no fault could be found with it. Cost of Rs.10,000 awarded in the background of circumstances of this case cannot be termed as excessive. Thus, finding this appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Appeal stands dismissed.

2. In the given circumstances there is no order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Appeal dismissed.

*******