IMPORTANT POINT
Party payment - The complainant undoubtedly is entitled to be duly compensated for the loss and injury inflicted upon him. He is also entitled to a flat in lieu of which he had made part payment.

ORDER

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Member—These twenty seven (27) appeals, no. 814, no. 815, no. 816, no. 817, no. 818, no. 819, no. 820, no. 821, no. 822, no. 823, no. 824, no. 825, no. 826, no. 827, no. 828, no. 829, no. 830, no. 831, no. 832, no. 833, no. 834, no. 835, no. 836, no. 837, no. 838, no. 839 and no. 840 of 2020, have been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Orders (27 nos.) dated 28.11.2019 of the State Commission in complaints no. 560, no. 561, no. 562, no. 563, no. 564, no. 565, no. 566, no. 567, no. 568, no. 569 of 2014, no. 278, no. 279, no. 280, no. 281, no. 282, no. 283, no. 284, no. 285, no. 286, no. 287 of 2015, no. 462 of 2015, no. 930, no. 932, no. 933, no. 934, no. 935 and no. 936 of 2016 respectively.

Ms. Deepika Mishra, learned counsel appeared for the appellant (the ‘builder co.’) in all twenty seven (27) appeals.

Mr. Manoj P. Mhatre, learned counsel appeared for the respondents (the ‘complainants’) in all appeals except appeals no. 814, no. 818, no. 828, no. 834, no. 837, no. 838 and no. 839 of 2020.

Mr. Satish Muley and Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, learned counsel appeared for the respondents (the ‘complainants’) in appeals no. 814, no. 818, no. 828, no. 834, no. 837, no. 838 and no. 839 of 2020.

No one appeared for the complainant in appeal no. 819 of 2020.

2. Learned counsel for both sides submit that similar facts and same questions of law are involved in all these twenty seven (27) appeals and as such they may be heard and decided together.

3. We have perused the record including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Orders (27 nos.) dated 28.11.2019 and the respective memoranda of appeal (27 nos.).

We see that similar facts and same questions of law are involved in all twenty seven (27) appeals. As such they are being disposed of vide this common order, with appeal no. 815 of 2020 being taken as the lead case.

Appeal No. 815 of 2020 (lead case):

4. The matter relates to a builder-buyer dispute.

As evinces from the record, the facts which occasioned the filing of complaint in the State Commission are as follows:

The complainant desirous to have a permanent residential accommodation in the city of Mumbai had approached the appellant builder co. (opposite party) which was going to construct the building in question under a scheme related to rehabilitation of slum dwellers and which had started booking and sale of the saleable components.

The opposite party shared with the complainant the entire details like project layout, cost breakup, possession timelines, etc. Being satisfied with the promised offer of amenities and facilities mentioned therein the complainant booked a residential flat in the proposed building admeasuring approx. 1135 sq. ft. (saleable area) which was to be constructed on the immovable property the details of which have been given in the complaint. The said booking was done on 27.02.2007. The agreed consideration of the flat was Rs. 22,70,000/-. An amount of Rs. 7,37,750/- vide cheque dated 27.02.2007 was paid to the builder co. in lieu of which a proper receipt of payment was also issued. After having received the part payment the builder co. issued the allotment letter dated 09.03.2007, thereby allotting a flat in favour of the complainant.

But, subsequently, the builder co. went back on its promise and completely failed to deliver anything in favour of the complainant. Not even the sale agreement was executed. In fact, the builder co. did not even commence the construction of the promised allotted flat. The off and on approaches made by the complainant to the builder co. could earn only further false promises and vague assurances alone that the work shall commence sooner or later.

The registered agreement which was also needed to avail the housing loan was never executed under the pretext that the same would be executed on obtaining IOD and CC. As part payment had already been made the complainant kept approaching the builder co. from time