Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Member and Narendra Kawde, Member
Nasser Rafik Qureshi —Complainant
versus
RNA Builders (NG) and Ors. —Opposite Parties
Complaint Case No. CC 12/207
Decided on 20.12.2013

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Ms. Shaila Pandey, Advocate.
For the Opponents:Manoj Mhatre, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where complainant booked the flat for residence from the project of opponents and not for commercial purpose, complainant could be termed as ‘consumer’ as per provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)—Housing—Deficiency in service— Non execution of sale deed in favour of complainant despite allotment— Evidence of complainant and documents filed by him on record in support of his version made it clear that complainant was ready and willing to make payment of consideration of flat but the opponents avoided to accept the amount— Staff of opponent No.1 refused to accept the cheques from Power of Attorney holder of the complainant and without any sufficient reason cancelled the booking of flat—By not following due procedure for allotment of flat to complainant, there was deficiency in service on part of the opponents— Opponents were duty bound to give flat to complainant on payment of balance consideration— Hence opponents directed to hand over possession of flat to complainant— Complaint partly allowed. (Paras 20 to 25)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(d)—Consumer –Non execution of sale deed in favour of complainant despite allotment— Documents on record and admitted facts showed that opponent No.1 was a service provider— Opponents plea that complainant could not be termed as ‘consumer’ as the flat was booked for commercial purpose i.e. for investment—Apart from bare words of opponent No.2, nothing on record to prove that complainant had booked the flat for investment— On the contrary, it was clear from affidavit filed on behalf of complainant that complainant was serving at Abu Dhabi and he was in need of residential flat at Mumbai and hence, he booked the flat for residence from the project of opponents— As the flat was booked for residential purpose, complainant could be termed as ‘consumer’ as per provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (Para 12)

ORDER

Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member—This consumer complaint is filed by Mr. Nasser Rafik Qureshi against M/s. RNA Builders (NG) and its proprietor, namely, Mr. Narenderpal Gupta for alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opponents. ‘ .

2. Facts giving rise to present complaint in short are as under:

Complainant-Mr. Nasser Rafik Qureshi is permanently residing at A503, Malkani Apartment, Bandevali Hill, Opp. Meena Hotel, S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West) at Mumbai. Opponent No.1 M/s. RNA Builders (NG) is a proprietary concern. Opponent No.1 is a promoter and developer having its registered office at Fort, Mumbai. Opponent No.2 is a proprietor of opponent No.1. At present complainant is residing in Dubai. On 17.7.2010 he came to India for signing the Agreement for Sale/Sale Deed and to take necessary steps. The complainant authorized and appointed his Power of Attorney to take necessary steps in the matter. Power of Attorney holder Mr. Maqsud Ahmed Usman Gani has personal knowledge about the transaction between the complainant and the opponents.

3. According to the complainant, he was in need of residential premises for his personal use. Therefore, he approached opponents for purchase of flat. In the month of July 2009, complainant went to site office of the opponents’ project at proposed building “N.G. Sterling” at Mira Road (East). Believing the representation made by the Sales Staff of the opponents, the complainant booked flat No.703 in A-wing, 7th floor of the proposed building for total consideration of Rs.23,66,000. The complainant had paid Rs.51,000 by cheque bearing No.939988 dated 24.7.2009. The balance consideration amount of Rs.23,15,000 was to be made as per demand made on progress of the work and upon production of Architect’s certificate certifying the completion of concerned slab. The opponents had issued allotment letter dated 28.7.2009 in favour of the complainant. The complainant was called upon to make further payment of Rs.3,03,900. The complainant made payment of Rs.3,03,900 on 30.7.2009 by cheque bearing No.939991 dated 3.8.2009. Vide demand letter dated 28.7.2009 the complainant was also called upon to take steps for registration for agreement of Sale. However, when the complainant made necessary inquiries, the opponents started giving evasive reply. In the month of January 2010 complainant’s representative Mr. Maqsud Ahmed visited the office of opponents and requested them to give details for stamp duty and registration. Initially the opponents continued with their previous attitude but later told the complainant that they would inform about time and date of registration for agreement of sale. For considerable long period of time, the opponents did not inform the date and time of Registration of agreement of sale, but later on informed that the complainant can come for the registration of agreement for sale in the month of February, 2010. As per the assurance given by opponent No.2, complainant came to India in February 2010 for registration of agreement for sale. Opponents started evading registration of the agreement for sale. Due to non-cooperation and rule attitude of opponents, complainant left the India without registration of agreement for sale. He spent amount of Rs.50,000 and also lost around Rs.50,000 of his earning when he came to India. The work of site of building was stopped after October 2009 for about seven months and in or about April 2010 the work was resumed by the opponents. In January 2010 onwards family members of the complainant made several rounds of the opponents for date and time for registration of agreement for sale. Opponents started delaying registration on one or other pretexts. The complainant wanted to avail housing loan, but he could not get loan on failure on the part of the opponents to execute agreement for sale in his favour. However, the complainant had made necessary arrangement for making payment of entire balance consideration from his own so

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAIUsha S. Thakare, Presiding Member and Narendra Kawde, MemberNasser Rafik Qureshi —ComplainantversusRNA Builders (NG) and Ors. —Opposite PartiesComplaint Case No. CC 12/207Decided on 20.12.2013

IMPORTANT POINTWhere complainant booked the flat for residence from the project of opponents and not for commercial purpose, complainant could be termed as ‘consumer’ as per provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Member and Narendra Kawde, Member
Nasser Rafik Qureshi —Complainant
versus
RNA Builders (NG) and Ors. —Opposite Parties
Complaint Case No. CC 12/207
Decided on 20.12.2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Where complainant booked the flat for residence from the project of opponents and not for commercial purpose, complainant could be termed as ‘consumer’ as per provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.