IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant cannot act in a lackadaisical manner.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—This case has a chequered history. In each case, the Builder is not be held deficient. Each case cannot be ducked in the way, the allottee wants. The duty cast upon this Commission is to winnow truth from falsehood. The story advanced by the complainant must be solid and unflappable.

2. Sh. Pradeep Kulsrestha, a Guard in the Railways, the complainant, booked a flat with M/s. M.S. Associates, a registered Partnership Firm, the OP4. All the partners, namely, Sh. Ashok Kumar R. Singh, Sh.Rupesh Vasant Shirke, Smt. Shashi Anand Pandey were arrayed as OPs 1 to 3.As per the Agreement, the flat was booked at Rs.12,90,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,40,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant approached UCO Bank for borrowing Home Loan. The UCO Bank demanded certain documents from the complainant and the complainant asked the OPs to do the needful. The OPs supplied the relevant documents, but the Bank ultimately refused to provide financial assistance to the complainant on the ground that OP1-Mr.Ashok Kumar R. Singh, who had signed the registered Agreement of Sale as a Partner, was subsequently added as a ‘Partner’, on 16.12.1999 and the requisite Deed of Partnership to that effect was not received by the Bank. The complainant could not get the loan and waddled out of the commitments/installments. The complainant approached the District Forum and filed the instant complaint with the following prayers :-

“The Hon’ble Forum be pleased to pass an order to put the complainant into possession of the residential premises flat No.101, A-Wing, 1st Floor, Manisha Apartments, Dhanukarwadi, Kandivilli (West), Mumbai – 400 067 and direct the Respondents to issue New NOC and to avail loan by the complainant of Rs.7,50,000/- as due payment to the Respondents.

b) The Hon’ble Forum be pleased to pass an order to pay the compensation to the complainant by the respondents.

c) The Hon’ble Forum be pleased to pass an order of injunction to restrain respondents from dealing, disposing of or creating third-party right or putting into the possession to any third-party against the Flat No.101, Manisha Apartments, Dhanukarwadi, Kandivilli (West), Mumbai – 400 067.

d) Reliefs in terms of prayer (a) (b) (c)

e) Cost of the complaint

f) any further and other order / direction be given in need of complaint”.

3. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and passed the following order :-

“The complaint is partly allowed.

The Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 4 are jointly & severally directed to pay to the complainant, an amount in sum of Rs.5,40,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a., as from 19.10.2007, till realization of entire amount by the complainant, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

It is hereby made clear that interim order dated 17.01.2008, passed by this Forum as regards restraining the opposite parties from creating third-party interest in respect of the flat in dispute, shall continue to remain in force for a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the complainant.

Rests of claims of the complainant stand rejected”.

4. The complainant filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, in a cryptic order, dismissed the appeal, vide its order dated 13.08.2012.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, Revision Petition (RP 3452/2012) was filed before this Commission. This Bench, vide order dated 01.08.2014, remanded the matter to the State Commission, with a direction to hear the parties on merits and pass a speaking order.

6. The State Commission, in compliance of this Commission’s order dated 01.08.2014, has partly allowed the appeal, as follows:

“Appeal is partly allowed.

Impugned order dated 10.02.2011 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.600 of 2007 is hereby set aside and it is substituted to be read, as under :-

Consumer complaint is partly allowed.

O