ORDER

A.Z. Khwaja, Judicial Member—Appellant – Reatox Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment order dated 24/01/2020 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur whereby the Consumer Complaint No. CC/17/142 came to be allowed. (Appellant and respondent shall hereinafter be referred as their original nomenclature)

2. Short facts leading to filing of the appeal may be narrated as under,

Complainant – Mr. Sunil Ramlal Wadhawan claims to be resident of Hindustan Colony, Amravati road, Nagpur. O.Ps. – Reatox Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. are builders and developers and dealing with the business of construction. The O.P. had started construction of building namely Symphony 2 having several flats. Complainant - Mr. Sunil Ramlal Wadhawan was attracted by the project and its amenities and so he decided to purchase one flat on 10th floor, D-Wing, unit No. 4, admeasuring area 1387 sq. fts. in building Symphony 2, for a consideration of Rs.32,45,580/-. Complainant had also paid an advance amount of Rs.11,88,382/- from time to time. The complainant had contended that though he had paid total sum of Rs.11,88,382/- there was no progress in the construction of the project taken up by the O.P.- builder and developer and they had also failed to hand over the possession. The O.P. was also issued allotment letter dated 01/06/2008 but there was no progress and the possession was not handed over as per terms of agreement. The complainant found that the O.P. had also violated the statutory provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act. The complainant also found that the O.P. had also not provided the common facilities and had failed to perform their obligation. The complainant thus came to the conclusion that the O.P. has indulge in deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. The complainant therefore, preferred the consumer complaint with a prayer to refund the amount of Rs.11,88,392/- along with interest at the rate of 24% plus appreciated value of Rs.6,00,000/-. The complainant has also sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.50,000/- by way of cost of litigation.

3. O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version on record. At the outset, the O.P. has contended that the complaint was not maintainable in law as the complainant had not arrayed MADC (Maharashtra Airport Development Company) as party respondent to the complaint. The O.P. was merely developer and MADC was the owner of the project and so MADC was a necessary party. The O.P. has admitted that the complainant had booked the flat for Rs. 32,45,580/- and had also paid a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- on 04/11/2007, Rs. 3,10,688/- on 25/04/2008 and Rs. 5,52,694/- on 07/12/2010. The O.P. has contended that the project started by the O.P.-Builder and Developers could not be completed because of legal hurdles faced by the MADC. The project was affected by SEZ denotification. The O.P. has contended that the project was not approved or acted upon for years together and so the development agreement with the O.P. was terminated by the MADC and so it could not proceed with the completion of the construction activity. Further account of the O.P. has declared as NPA and their frozen. The O.P. has contended that it and MADC had agreed in principal for restarting of the project and new development agreement was also to be signed and thereafter actual construction will be started. For the forgoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainant deserved to be dismissed with cost.

4. The learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur thereafter recorded the evidence led by the complainant and O.P. The learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur also went through the documents filed on record by both the parties. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nag