STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/18/512 (Arising against the order dated 16/03/2018 passed by the Addl.D.F.Mumbai Suburban in CC/12/565)

M/s.Sunil Construction through its Proprietor Mr.Sunil L.Chavan having office at G-1, Shree Datta CHS Ltd.

Near Shiv Mandir, Anand Nagar Jogeshwari (W)

Mumbai 400 102 ...... Appellant/org.OP Versus Mrs.Payal Rakesh Sawant through C.A.Jaya Sawant presently residing at Flat no.404 ………Respondent/org.complainant Building no.6, TULIP CHS Ltd.

Andheri (W)

Mumbai 400 053 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Advocate B.T.Yadav for appellant Advocate V.P.Tare for respondent FINAL ORDER (Dt.11/03/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/org.OP against the impugned order dated 16/03/2018 passed by the Ld.Addl.District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no.RBT/CC/12/565.

BRIEF FACTS:-

2. The respondent/org. complainant had booked one flat no.B-704 admeasuring

231 sq.ft. on 01/05/2008 with the respondent i.e. present appellant. As on

05/05/2008, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.6,75,000/- by way of cash and cheque to the present appellant in respect of flat and the respondent issued Allotment Letter dated 02/05/2008. The original complainant submitted in the complaint that the opponent showed only an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- in the Allotment Letter, which was paid by cash and did not give receipt for rest of the amount i.e. Rs.3 lakhs in spite of several requests. The present appellant did not complete the construction of the building even after the period of 4 years and refused to pay the amount paid to him as per the prevailing market rate. Hence the respondent/ original complainant had filed the consumer complaint before the Ld.Additional District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban.

3. After hearing both the sides, the Ld.District Consumer Commission passed an order on 16/03/2018, whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the opponent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,45,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment till realization of the amount and also directed opponent to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for mental agony to the complainant. Being aggrieved with the said impugned order, the present appellant/org. opponent has filed this appeal.

GROUND OF APPEAL-

4. The appellant submitted that the complainant/respondent had booked the shop premises, which was for making a profit by way of selling purpose. Hence the said shop has been booked for commercial purpose, which is not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined u/sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said shop was not purchased for the purpose of her livelihood or for self-employment purpose. The appellant further contended that the cause of action for filing the original complaint arose as on 17/09/2012. The original complaint was amended as on 12/09/2016. After two years from the date of cause of action arose the complaint is not filed, hence the original complaint is hit by the law of limitation as per section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5. The appellant further pleaded in the grounds of appeal that the Ld.District Consumer Commission has overlooked the intention of the complainant. Initially the complainant had booked the flat and, thereafter, claimed refund of the amount for which the present appellant has refunded Rs.30,000/- as on 18/11/2009 by way of cheque to the mother-in-law of the complainant. The said fact is suppressed by the original complainant in the original complaint. The Ld.District Consumer Commission ought to have dismissed the complaint for committing such fraud upon the Commission. The complainant has sent legal notice as on 17/09/2012 and asked for refund of Rs.6,75,000/-. The present appellant was ready and willing to refund the amount of Rs.3,45,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs.30,000/- paid by way of