STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI COMPLAINT NO.RBT/CC/16/462 Shri.Suresh Chand Gupta s/o late Shri.Ram Gopal Gupta R/of 18, Vijay Vilas, Oomar Park, Warden Road, Mumbai. Complainant Versus

1. M/s. Inde Graniti Industries Ltd.

Office at- 1413, Maker Chambers V, 13^th floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. 2. Shri.J.N.Gupta Director of Opp. No.1

1413, Maker Chambers V, 13^th floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021.

3. Shri.Gulab Gupta Director of Opp. No.1

29, Veer Nariman Road, Rustom Building, Mumbai 400 021.

4. Shri.J.M.Upadhyaya Chief Accountant of Opp. No.1

29, Veer Nariman Road, Rustom Building, Mumbai 400 021.

5. The State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur A-1/19, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. Opponents BEFORE :

Mr.Justice S.P.Tavade, Hon’ble President Mr.A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Judicial Member PRESENT:

For the Advocate Ajay Pawar Complainant :

For the Advocate Chimalkar h/f Opponent : Advocate Prabhavalkar JUDGMENT rd (Dated 3 May, 2023)

Per: Hon’ble Mr.A.Z.Khwaja, Judicial Member-

1] Complainant Shri.Suresh Chand Gupta claims to be resident of Warden Road, Mumbai and also claims to be Businessman. Opponent No.1 – M/s. Inde Graniti Industries Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act. Opponent No.2 -Shri. J.N. Gupta and opponent No.3 Shri. Gulab Gupta are the Directors of opponent No.1 and are responsible for day today affairs of opponent No.1. Opponent No. 4 is the Chief Accountant of opponent No.1. Complainant and Opponent Nos. 1 to 4 are dealing in the business of constructing several projects and buildings on various plots in Navi Mumbai. Complainant has further contended that opponent Nos.1 to 4 represented to the complainant that they were constructing several projects in Navi Mumbai. Complainant has contended that relying upon the representation of the opponents, complainant booked flat No. DX 16 in the building ‘Om Villa’ alongwith car parking situated at plot No.57 to 61, sector 21, Nerul, Navi Mumbai admeasuring 1620 sq.ft. from opponents. Complainant has contended that the total consideration of the flat including the car parking was fixed at Rs.25,86,048/-. Complainant made payment of Rs.11,35,000/- to the Opponent No. 1 and acknowledgement was also given. On 28/01/2022 opponent No.1 issued letter to the complainant asking to make further payment of Rs.14,51,000/- as balance payment of consideration of flat. Opponent No.1 demanded sum of Rs.1,00,000/- against MSEB charges, water connection charges, security deposit etc. Complainant has alleged that though he has made substantial payment, opponent No.1 sent letter dated 07/04/2003 demanding final payment of Rs.9,21,048/- and additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for miscellaneous charges. Opponent thereafter executed agreement for sale on 19/12/2003 which was registered with Sub Registrar, Navi Mumbai and as per the registered agreement for sale cost of flat was shown as Rs.25,86,048/- including car parking. Complainant has contended that subsequently price of the premises DX 16 was revised to Rs.29,36,734/- from the earlier price of Rs.25,86,048/- inclusive of car parking for which Rs.1,00,000/- extra was demanded and additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was demanded for MSEB, society deposit of Rs.30,000/- etc and Rs.19,236/- for maintenance charges was also demanded even though the possession of the flat was not handed over to the complainant. Complainant has contended that revised cost of the flat DX 16 was fixed at Rs.31,55,950/- of which Rs.21,05,000/- has already been paid by the complainant as on 28/02/2004. Hence, balance payable as on 28/02/2004 was Rs.10,15,970/-. Complainant has contended that thereafter opponent Nos.1 to 3 have informed the complainant that if the complainant desires to book an additional flat, he may do so which was already booked by the opponent No.3 and his family pertaining to DX 4, RH11, RH 13 and bunglow at Parsi Hill, Belapur, Navi Mumbai, which all were standing in the name of the opponent No.3 and his family. Complainant