STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/17/1089 (Arising against the order dated 31/07/2017 passed by the D.F. Central Mumbai in CC/10/22)

Mr. P. M. Sathaiah R/o. Shri. Sunder Kamla Nagar CHS Ltd.

3rd Floor, Room No.307, Vishramwadi, Opp.Gandhi Market, Sion, Mumbai-400 022 ...... Appellant/org.complainant Versus

1. Mr.Poonamchand Nenshi Shah (Deceased)

M/s.Poonam Developers

1/r.1.1Smt.Prabhavati P.Shah.

1.4 Miss.Chetna P.Shah R/o, 90 ft.road, Kumbharwada, V.L.T.No.26, Dharavi, Mumbai-400017

2. Mr.Poonamchand Nenshi Shah (Deceased)

M/s.Poonam Developers Mr.Jyotindrakumar P.Shah

1.4 Miss.Chetna P.Shah R/o, 90 ft.road, Kumbharwada, V.L.T.No.26, Dharavi, Mumbai-400017 ………Respondents/org.OPs

3. Mr.Poonamchand Nenshi Shah (Deceased)

M/s.Poonam Developers Mr.Vijaykumar P.Shah 1.4 Miss.Chetna P.Shah R/o, 90 ft.road, Kumbharwada, V.L.T.No.26, Dharavi, Mumbai-400017

4. Miss.Chetna P.Shah R/o.90 ft.road, Kumbharwada, V.L.T.No.26, Dharavi, Mumbai-400017

5. Chairman/Secretary, R/o. Midas Tower Co. Op. Housing Soc.Ltd., Bhaudaji road, Sundar Kamla Nagar, Vishramwadi, EXTN Sion (West).

6. Mr.Paras Bhupu Shah R/o.Flat no.502, Midas Tower Co. Op. Housing Soc.Ltd., Bhaudaji road, Sundar Kamla Nagar, Vishramwadi, EXTN Sion (West).

BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Advocate Uday Wavikar a/w. Advocate Sajira Jondhale for Appellant.

Advocate Vijay Waghela for respondent FINAL ORDER (Dt.23/05/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the order dated

31/07/2017 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai in consumer complaint no.CC/10/22.

The facts of the case in brief are as under:-

2. The original complainant/appellant had booked the flat bearing no.502 admeasuring 735 sq.ft. in the building known as ‘Arihant Towers’, Building no.4, on plot No.7/1/6 and 7/1-A/6, Survey No.6 (part), Village Sion, Mumbai 400 022 for the consideration of Rs.10,50,000/-. The original complainant paid an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and, thereafter, the respondents have executed an Agreement for Sale dated 22/04/2000 for the said flat. It is further contended by the appellant in the facts of the case that there was over writing in the said agreement and there was discrepancy in the said Agreement as flat number was shown as 504. The area of the said flat was written as 525 sq.ft. and therefore, the respondents have executed the Supplementary Agreement dated 13/12/2000 in which the respondents have confirmed the flat no.502 and also confirmed the area of 735 sq.ft. However, in the Supplementary Agreement the total consideration of the flat was increased to Rs.14,70,000/-. The respondents have failed to execute and get it registered the aforesaid agreement with the present appellant. The appellant has paid further payment towards the said flat as and when demanded by the respondents. The appellant has paid a sum of Rs.9,32,500/- out of Rs.14,70,000/- to the respondents. The respondents have sent the demand letter as on 30/10/2002 and demanded an amount of Rs.8,35,000/-, whereas the appellant has already paid a sum of Rs.9,32,500/- out of Rs.14,70,000/-. Therefore, the appellant has replied through the letter dated 03/11/2002 and shown his willingness to pay the balance consideration amount as per the Agreement. In spite of accepting the huge amount towards the flat and even showing the willingness to pay the balance consideration amount, the respondents have failed to hand over the possession of the flat. Therefore, the present appellant has filed the original consumer complaint before the Ld.District Consumer Commission.

3. The appellant has further submitted that after the detailed evidence as required to adjudicate the complaint and after hearing both the parties, the consumer complaint was returned stating/directing the appellant to approach to the Civil Court.

4. The appellant further contended that the Ld.District C