##PAGE1##

A-20-165

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

Appeal No.A/20/165 (Arising against the order dated 27/11/2019 passed by the D.F. Raigad at Alibag in CC/18/678)

1.Mrs.Karishma Madhukar Sable R/o.A-501, Shiddh Rameshwar Building

Plot no.111, Sector 1, Sanpada Navi Mumbai 400 705.

2.Mr. Madhukar Ganpat Sable R/o.A-501, Shiddh Rameshwar Building

Plot no.111, Sector 1, Sanpada Navi Mumbai 400 705.

...... Appellants/org.complainants

Versus

1. M/s.Padmavati Infraheight Pvt.Ltd.

At-6/6/4, Near Bhatiya High School ………Respondents/org.Opponents Sector-17, CIDCO Colony Station Road, New Panvel

Taluka Panvel, District Raigad 410 206

2.Mr.Mahindra Pawan Kumar Singh Director of M/s.Padmavati Infraheight Pvt.Ltd.

Address at -B-1704, 17^th floor Niharika CHS Ltd. Pokhran Road no.2

Near Hiranandani Midows, Thane

3. Mr.Vidyaprakash Premprakash Singh Director of M/s.Padmavati Infraheight Pvt.Ltd.

Address at-Room no.2, Ground floor Moraj River CHS Ltd.

Sun Building, 448/49A, Takka Village Taluka Panvel, District Raigad

4.Mr.Vikas Hirji Mhatre Director of M/s.Padmavati Infraheight Pvt.Ltd.

Address at -Flat no.A-70-4, Sector-13, CIDCO Colony, New Panvel

Taluka Panvel, District Raigad

1

A-20-165

5.Mr.Balkrishna Mahudu Sinare Director of M/s.Padmavati Infraheight Pvt.Ltd.

Address at -Room no.38, Village -Dhundre

Taluka Panvel, District Raigad

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

PRESENT: Advocate Rajkumar Jagtap for appellants.

None present for the respondents.

ORAL FINAL ORDER (Dt.24/03/2026)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The appellants/original complainants have filed the present appeal challenging the legality and maintainability of the judgment/order dated 27/11/2019 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Raigad at Alibag in consumer

complaint no.CC/18/678.

2. The present appellants, who are original complainants had filed the original consumer complaint, wherein it is contended that the appellants had booked the flat bearing no.203, A wing, admeasuring area about 886 sq.ft. situated at Padmavati Lifestyle, Gut No.262/1, Village-Deved-Shivkar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The cost of the flat was decided as Rs.21,26,400/-. The original complainant paid the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the balance amount is to be paid to the respondents. The respondents have failed to construct the flat. Therefore, the present appellants have filed the original consumer complaint

against the respondents.

3. After hearing both the sides, the Ld.District Consumer Commission, has passed an order, wherein it is contended that the present appellants have to pay the balance consideration amount to the respondents and, thereafter, the respondents have to execute the Sale Deed and give possession of the flat to the

present appellants.

2

A-20-165

4. It is further contended in the order that if it is not possible to give possession of the flat, then in the alternative, the respondents have to refund the amount paid by the complainants along with interest as well as awarded cost of litigation and the compensation. The appellants are aggrieved with the said order, as the building is not constructed and the condition was imposed in the operative order to pay the balance consideration amount to the respondents. Since the property is

not in existence, the appellants are entitled to have refund of the paid amount.

5. It is further contended in the appeal that the cost, which is imposed on the respondents for mental agony is improper as the flat has not been constructed by the respondents and the present appellants are suffering from mental agony. The appellants have prayed that the impugned order may be modified so far as clause no.3 of the operative order is concerned and the respondents/original opponents should be directed to refund the consideration paid along with interest @ 18% p.a. as well as directed to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for mental agony and

Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

6.