STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/17/313 (Arisen out of order dated 19/09/2016 in Complaint No.220 of 2013 passed by the Addl.District Consumer Commission Thane)

1.Prathamesh Construction Shop no.32, Shiv Chambers Beside MTNL Building Ground Floor, Sector 11 CBD Belapur Navi Mumbai 400 614

2.Mr.Vijay Singh Proprietor- Prathamesh Construction Shop no.32, Shiv Chambers Beside MTNL Building Ground Floor, Sector 11 ....... Appellant/org.OP CBD Belapur Navi Mumbai 400 614 Versus Mr.Pulikkottil Kuriakku Sunny R/at Building no.7 Flat no.1, Kendriya Vihar Sector 38, Nerul West ………Respondent/org.complainant Navi Mumbai 400 706 BEFORE:

Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT:

Advocate Aditya Kharkar h/f. Dr.Uday Warunjikar is present for appellant.

Advocate Rajaram V. Bansode is present for respondent.

FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT (Dt.02/01/2025)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade – President

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Additional Thane in consumer complaint no.220 of 2013, dated 19/09/2016, the original opponent has filed the present appeal. The parties to this appeal shall be called and referred to as per their status in the original consumer complaint.

2. The complainant had filed consumer complaint bearing no.220/2013, which was allowed by the Ld.District Commission. It was the case of the complainant that he was in need of accommodation. He came across an advertisement of the opponent that they are launching a project at Ulwe, New Bombay. Hence, he approached the opponent and booked the flat by paying a sum of Rs.4,94,000/- on 01/09/2010. It was contended that the opponent had initiated the project at Sector 23 of Ulwe, New Bombay. The cost of the flat was Rs.29 lakhs. After booking of the flat, the complainant was enquiring about the Project. The opponent informed that due to several permissions, the project was not started. Therefore, the opponent has requested the complainant to shift his booking to its other project at Sector 21. Accordingly, the complainant gave consent for booking of flat in Sector 21. Thereafter, the said project was also not started. Therefore, the opponent requested the complainant to shift his booking at Sector no.20 on plot nos.188, 189 & 190A. The complainant has also given consent to the said proposal. It was contended that till 2013, the Opponent did not start the construction work on the ground that it did not get requisite permissions. Ultimately, the opponent asked the complainant to cancel the booking. Accordingly, the complainant had cancelled the booking. The Opponent paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant but failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,44,000/-. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice to the respondent for refund of the said amount but it was not returned. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed.

3. The Opponent appeared in the complaint and filed written statement. It was admitted that the complainant had booked the flat in their Project at Sector 23 by paying an amount of Rs.4,94,000/- on 01/09/2010. It was also admitted fact that due to delay in project, the Opponent had requested the complainant to shift their booking of flat in their Project at Sector 21. The said proposal was also accepted by the complainant but even thereafter, the Project in Sector 21 could not be started. Hence, the complainant was asked to shift their booking in Sector 20, which was also accepted by the complainant. But ultimately, the complainant requested the Opponent to cancel the booking. Accordingly, the Opponent refunded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by cheque to the complainant. It was contended that the complainant was asked to produce the original receipt so that remaining payment can be made to the complainant, but the complainant failed to produce the original receipt. Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,44,000/- was not paid to the complainant. It was