IMPORTANT POINT
Petitioner not exercised its option to cancel allotment, as threatened vide letter, direction to Complainants to pay to Petitioner interest @ 12% p.a.

D.K. Jain, J., President—This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short, the “Act”) has been preferred by a real estate developer, Opposite Party in the Complaint, questioning the correctness and legality of the order, dated 23.10.2008, passed by the Maharasthra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 577 of 2008. By the impugned order, while affirming the direction of the District Forum to the Complainants to pay the balance sale consideration before the possession of the flat in question is delivered to them by the Petitioner, the State Commission has set aside the direction regarding payment of interest @ 18% p.a. by them on the balance consideration.

2. The Complainants had booked with the Petitioner a flat bearing No. 106, on First Floor in the building known as “Atharva Residency”, situated at Survey No. 82/1-A/4, Sangvi, Taluka-Haveli, District Pune, for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,89,075/-. An Agreement To Sale was executed in their favour by the Petitioner on 12.05.2006. Out of the total consideration, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by the Complainants as part payment. The balance amount of Rs.6,89,075/- was to be paid in five phases, as enumerated in the Agreement. The Agreement was duly registered. According to the Complainants, the balance amount towards consideration was to be paid by them by raising housing loan, subject to the Petitioner making available certain documents, including the title document, necessary permissions of the Government Authorities etc. The possession of the flat was to be delivered by the end of May, 2006. The Complainants claim to have submitted proposal for housing loan with Bank of India in the month of August 2006. However, the proposal was rejected because of non-furnishing of the documents, referred to in the agreement dated 12.05.2006, by the Petitioner. On 31.08.2006, the Petitioner addressed a letter to the Complainants reminding them that they had paid only a sum of Rs.1,39,125/-, out of a total consideration of Rs.8,89,075/- and therefore, they were required to pay the balance amount within seven days failing which interest @ 18% p.a., as stipulated in the Agreement, would be charged. There was no response to the said reminder from the side of the Complainants. Similar reminders sent by the Petitioner, to the Complainants, vide its letters dated 05.09.2006 and 16.05.2007, despite threat of cancellation of allotment, did not evoke any response. On 13.07.2007, the Petitioner issued a legal notice to the Complainants calling upon them to pay the balance consideration of Rs.6,89,075/- together with interest of Rs.1,24,035/-, totalling Rs.8,13,110/-, within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the notice. They were put to notice that if they fail to make the payment, the agreement, dated 12.05.2006, shall be terminated and the Petitioner would be at liberty to dispose of the flat. In their response to the said legal notice, vide letter dated 23.07.2007, the Complainants alleged that since despite several requests the Petitioner had not furnished the requisite documents, their loan proposal was rejected. They asked the Petitioner to furnish to them certain documents including sanctioned plan, NOC for Bank Loan, Development Agreement, Power of Attorney, copy of commencement certificate etc.

3. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not furnishing the requisite documents for the purpose of disbursement of home loan, on 05.09.2007, the Complainants filed the Complaint before the District Forum, seeking directions to the Petitioner to furnish the necessary documents of title of the flat; complete the entire transaction; not to create a third party interest in respect of the flat in question and to pay compensation.

4. The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner on diverse grounds. It was pleaded that: the Complainants had paid a su