STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.AE/5/2024 (Arising out of order dated 05/039/2024 passed by the D.F. Thane in EA/14/30)

Mr.Sayarimal Jain Proprietor of M/s.Ankush Enterprises .....Appellant/Org.OP no.1 Mumbai 4000 004 Versus

1.Smt.Sushila Ishwarlal Bhatt 2.Mr.Narendra Ishwarlal Bhatt ……Respondents/org.complainants Bhayander (W), District Thane

3.Mangala Smruti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ……..Respondent/org.OP no.3 Bhayander (W), District Thane BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member Appellant Mr.Sayarimal Jain present along with PRESENT: Advocate Digambar Thakare a/w. Advocate Ajay Pawar a/w. Advocate Aniket Ghanekar Advocate Aarti Bhandari for respondents/org.complainants FINAL ORDER (Dt.18/11/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 05/03/2024, in Execution Application no.30/2014, passed by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane against the conviction order dated 05/03/2024 to the present appellant.

The facts of the appeal:-

2. The appellant has contended that appellant is the original opponent in the original consumer complaint filed by the respondent no.1. The appellant has contended that the respondent no.3-Society has executed the Development Agreement as on 15/07/2023 with the appellant. The original complainant and the respondent no.3 failed to comply their part of contract by paying consideration towards the cost of the construction as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The complainant filed the original complaint against the present appellant for non-delivery of the alleged flat to the original complainant. The Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane has passed the order in consumer complaint no.103/2011 dated 21/12/2013 against the present appellant. The original complainant has also filed an Execution Application for non-compliance of the order in consumer complaint no.103/2011 by the present appellant. The present appellant has also filed First Appeal no.52/2014, which was partly allowed by the Hon’ble State Commission by reducing the compensation from Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The appellant was ready and shown his willingness to settle the matter and also agreed to hand over the keys of the flat to the respondent nos.1 & 2 for the lesser area granted under the original consumer complaint order. The respondent nos.1 & 2 refused to accept the same. The appellant wrote a letter to the respondent nos.1 & 2 to pay the balance consideration and take the flat but the respondent nos.1 & 2 failed to pay the same.

3. It is further contended in the facts of the appeal that respondent nos.1 & 2 filed the execution proceedings before the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane for non-compliance of the order u/sec.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but after taking the objection the same was chosen by the respondent nos.1 & 2 to proceed the application u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant has tried to comply the order by handing over the possession of flat no.302 to the respondent nos.1 & 2. However, respondent nos.1 & 2 refused to take possession of the same. It is contended that respondent nos.1 & 2 failed to pay the balance amount as per the order. The said aspect is not considered by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane in the trial of the execution application. The Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane failed to consider the old flat was 248.05 sq.ft. carpet area and the respondent nos.1 & 2 failed to prove that they were entitled for 300 sq.ft. carpet area. The appellant has contended that after the final hearing, the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane as on 15/12/2023, th