Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Yogesh Ramling Warad —Appellant
versus
Teirth Developers and Suyojit Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal Nos.935, 936, 1131 and 1132 of 2016
Decided on 20.3.2017
For the Appellant in FA Nos.935 and 936 of 2016:Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate with Mr. D.A. Taur, Advocate
For the Appellant in FA Nos.1131 and 1132 of 2016:Mr. Hemant Shah, Mr. Saurabh Verma and Mr. R.V. Bhawar, Advocates
For the Respondents in FA Nos.935 and 936 of 2016:Mr. Hemant Shah, Mr. Saurabh Verma and Mr. R.V. Bhawar, Advocates
For the Respondents in FA Nos.1131 and 1132 of 2016:Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate with Mr. D.A. Taur, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Amount of compensation cannot be unduly enhanced.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Development agreement—Through consumer complaints direction was sought to OPs to deliver possession of flats and also to pay compensation on various counts to complainants for deficiency in service—Deficiency in service on part of OPs has been established because of delay in delivery of possession beyond period prescribed in flat-purchase agreement between parties—There is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdiction error in orders passed by State Commission—State Commission have already allowed compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs to complainant in one case and Rs.5 Lakhs in another case for mental pain and agony—Orders passed by State Commission upheld. (Paras 14 to 16)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—Two cross appeals, FA/935/2016 and FA/1131/2016 have been filed against the impugned order dated 25.04.2016, passed by the Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) by the rival parties in consumer complaint CC/13/502, filed by the complainant Yogesh Ramling Warad against the builders Teirth Developers and Suyojit Infrastructure Limited etc.
2. The other two cross appeals, FA/936/2016 and FA/1132/2016 have been filed against the impugned order dated 21.04.2016, passed by the State Commission in consumer complaint case No. CC/13/503, filed by the complainant Vaibhav Eknath Farkande against the same developers. Since the facts in these cases are almost similar, the four appeals are being decided by this common order and a copy of the same be placed on each file. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been quoted from the consumer complaint CC/13/502, which is the subject matter of FA/935/2016 & FA/1131/2016.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that both the complainants are members of Aarohi Cooperative Housing Society Limited, which has 166 members, and is registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The said members came together with the purpose of acquiring houses at reasonable prices. The opposite party No. 3 (OP-3) builder, Suyojit Infrastructure Ltd. approached the said society and offered to construct the houses in a Housing Scheme at Village SUS, Pune for the members of the society. The OP-2 Vijay Tukaram Raundal had acquired development rights in respect of land with survey No. 123/1, 123/2, 123/3/1, 123/3/2, 123/4/2 and 123/6/2 at the said village. The OP-2 & OP-3 entered into a joint venture under the name and style of Teirth Developers and Suyojit Infrastructure Limited, which is arrayed as OP-1 in the consumer complaints. The OP-1 decided to develop the land and provide houses to 166 members of the society, after getting the building plans sanctioned from the Town Planning Department, Pune. The complainants approached the OPs for the purchase of flats in the said scheme. The OPs agreed to sell flat D-604 on the 6th Floor to the complainant Yogesh Ramling Warad for a consideration of Rs.20,01,300/-. A flat-booking agreement was signed between the complainant and the OPs on 15.04.2001, which was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Haveli No. 15 at Sl. No. 3942/2011 on 30.04.2011. The saleable area built up for the said unit was 955 sq. ft. In the other case, the agreement was made between the complainant Vaibhav Eknath Farkande and the OPs for flat No. C-401 for a total consideration of Rs.21,12,363/-. The flat-booking agreement was executed on 14.04.2009, which was duly registered by the Sub Registrar, Haveli No. 19 at Sl. No. 1244/2009 on 18.04.2009. The saleable built-up area of the said flat was 1111.77 sq. ft.
4. In the case of Yogesh Ramling Warad, he raised loan from the Axis Bank, Pune and paid a sum of Rs.18,19,272/- to the OPs towards part consideration. In the case of Vaibhav Eknath Farkande, loan of Rs.17,38,000/- was raised from the State Bank of India, Aundh Branch. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.18,87,322/- to the OPs. The OPs agreed to deliver the possession of the flat to the complainant on or before 31.12.2011 in the first case and on or before 30.07.2010 in the second case as mentioned in para 11 of the booking agreements in the respective cases. It is stated that in both the cases, the OPs failed to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession to the complainants within the stipulated time and hence, committed breach of contract. The complainant had to obtain rental accommodation and suffered mental pain, agony and inconvenience.
5. It has been alleged in the consumer complaints that the OPs had also not provided all amenities and facilities as per the agreement. There were many defects and lacunae in the construction of the building and the fla
