The court emphasized the liability of the opponents under The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act and The Consumer Protection Act for failing to hand over possession of the property despite full payment.

ORDER

Mrs. Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Member - Complainant, Ram Mohan Garg, has filed the present complaint by levelling allegations of adopting unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the opponents.

2. The facts giving rise to the present complaint are as under:

The complainant is doctor by profession having his clinic on rental basis. The said clinic is only source of his income by self-employment to maintain his family. The opponent No. 1 is private limited company engaged in business of building and developing. The opponent No. 2 is Managing Director of the opponent No. 1. The opponent Nos. 3 to 5 are Directors of the opponent No. 1. The opponent No. 6 is co-operative housing society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, bearing registration No. MUM/MHADB/HSG/TC/11659-2002-03. It is a combination of 10 co-operative societies and represented through its Chairman and Secretary. The opponent Nos. 1 to 5 had agreed to re-develop the property of the opponent No. 6 and thereby got registered the agreement for re-development on 31.12.2005.

3. According to the complainant, in 2004 he booked shop in the name of himself with the opponent No. 1 for having his own clinic after making payment of Rs. 6 lacs out of full price. The opponent Nos. 1 to 5 allotted shop to him by letter dated 4.3.2004. The complainant had paid first instalment of Rs. 50,000 on 6.3.2004, second instalment of Rs. 1,50,000 on 10.3.2004 and third instalment of Rs. 4 lacs by cheque dated 12.3.2004. The entire payment was acknowledged by the opponent Nos. 1 to 5 by issuing receipts. On 4.11.2006, the agreement for sale got signed by the complainant, opponent No. 1 and one of the directors and same was registered. The opponent Nos. 1 and 2 were not giving possession of the shop to the complainant on one or the other pretext. On 22.3.2007, the opponent Nos. 1 to 5 had asked to him to pay miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 30,260 for legal charges, share money, application, etc. The complainant had showed willingness to pay the same on possession. Despite receipt of full payment, the opponent Nos. 1 to 5 were not willing to hand over the possession of said shop. The complainant had made immediate payment without any delay as per the desire of the builder. There was no negligence on his part. Finally, the complainant realized that the builder may not give the possession. Therefore, he has accepted the second proposal. He agreed to accept another proposal i.e. to accept flat No. 1601, admeasuring 885 sq. ft. on 16th floor, in the proposed building No. 5, known as New D.N. Nagar, Sagar Sahwas Colony Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Link Road, D.N. Nagar, Andheri (West), Mumbai-53. At that time, the builder was developing the property of the opponent No. 6. The complainant has been promised earlier that Rs. 6,00,000 will be adjusted and transferred in the transaction of flat No. 1601. Despite making and handing over his hard earned money to the builder, the builder is neglecting and trying to avoid his own legal obligation. The complainant is constantly in touch with the opponents and is requesting to hand over the flat, but it was not materialized. The complainant heard that now-a-days in place of opponent Nos. 1 to 5 some other person is going to re-develop the project which was agreed between the opponents. The complainant again visited the office of the opponent No. 6. The opponents were in no mood to talk with the complainant. Despite the re-development, the property belongs to the opponent No. 6. Opponents showing their ignorance. The attitude of the opponent Nos. 1 to 6 is causing hardship and day to day difficulties for the complainant and his family. The complainant had given copy of agreement for development which is signed on 31.12.2005 between all the opponents and same is registered on 5.1.2006. After making full payment to the opponent Nos. 1 to 5, the complainant has requested to the opponent Nos. 1 to 6 for building th