STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/22/534 (Arisen out of order dated 28/04/2022 in Complaint No.CC/20/94 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai.)

Sanvo Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

Marathon Nexzone, Panvel Having corporate office at

702, Marathon Max, Mulund – Goregaon Link Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai 400080. …… Appellant (Original Opponent)

V/s.

Hitesh Tejnani Age: 40 Years Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai Residing at

601/A, Bhagnagri CHS Ltd.

Duncan Causeway Road, Sion – Chunabhatti Mumbai 400 022. …....Respondent (Original Complainant)

BEFORE:

Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C. Premchandani – Member For the Appellant(s) : Advocate S.B. Prabhavalkar For the Respondent(s): In person JUDGMENT (Dated 08-11-2024)

Per: Hon’ble Vijay C. Premchandani, Member

1. The present appellants ( Original Opponent ) filed this appeal, being aggrieved by Judgment and Order dated 28.04.22 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Central Mumbai at Parel, in Consumer Complaint No.94/2020 filed by the Respondent ( Original Complainant ), thereby partly allowing the said Consumer Complaint and holding that the Appellant is guilty of adopting Deficiency in Services and unfair trade practices towards the Respondent while providing construction services to the Respondent and to pay an amount of Rs.12,03,296/- to gather with SI interest @18% p.a. from 01.02.2014 till realization, Rs.1,00,000/- as and by way of compensation towards mental agony suffered by the Respondent and Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation, with further directions to pay the said amount within 30 days from the receipt of the Order, failing which the said amount will attract SI @

24% instead of 18% p.a.

FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT.

2. In the month of December 1013, Complainant and his wife Ritika Tejnani signed the Reservation Booking form and booked Flat No.2303 in the Building known as Marathon Nexzone Acruz situated at Village Kolkhe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad for Consideration of Rs.48,13,182/- and other charges amounting to Rs.6,32.631. The Provisional allotment letter was issued by the Appellant in favor of the Respondent. The Respondent disputed that as per terms and conditions of the booking form they are not liable to pay service tax and demanded corrected statement. It is contended in the present appeal that the appellant informed to the respondent that if they opt for flat on the higher floor beyond 15^th floor then they would get the benefit in Which the service tax, VAT and all applicable Govt. Taxes will be paid by the appellant on behalf of the Respondent. It is further contented in this appeal that the respondent forged the allotment letter which was duly informed to him by the appellant. The appellant terminated the provisional booking of the flat in question and called upon the Respondent to collect the refund of Cheque as per the terms and conditions of the letter of Allotment. The cheque is not collected by the Respondent. After several Reminders the Respondent sent a letter to the appellant and called for refund the amount as per market value of the flat and compounding interest @ 2% per month. After two years limitation period for filling complaint from the date of cancellation of booking the present Respondent filed the Consumer Complaint. The appellant filed the Written Statement. The District Forum partly allowed the said complaint, being aggrieved by the Judgement the present appellant filed this appeal.

MAJOR GROUNDS FOR APPEAL.

a) That the Original Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, as the Respondent has not engaged and /or availed the services of the appellant for residential purposes, but the same was for commercial purpose.

b) That the Hon’ble District Commission erred in not appreciating that the Hon’ble District Commission had no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain and decide the original Complaint