##PAGE1##

A-20-169

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

Appeal No.A/20/169 (Arising against the order dated 27/11/2019 passed by the D.F. Raigad at Alibag in CC/18/677)

Mr.Rupesh Baba Bansode Address-10/27, Railway Police Quarters

Pantnagar, Ghatkopar Mumbai. ...... Appellant/org.complainant

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

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

Address at -Room no.38, Village -Dhundre

Taluka Panvel, District Raigad

1

A-20-169

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

PRESENT: Advocate Rajkumar Jagtap for appellant.

None present for the respondents.

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

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The appellant/original complainant has 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/18/677.

2. The present appellant, who is original complainant had filed the original consumer complaint, wherein it is contended that the appellant had booked the flat bearing no.101, A wing, admeasuring area about 715 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.17,00,000/-. The original complainant paid the amount of Rs.3,86,100/- and the balance amount is to be paid to the respondents. The respondents have failed to construct the flat. Therefore, the present appellant has 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 appellant has 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

appellant.

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 complainant along with interest as well as awarded cost of litigation and

2

A-20-169 the compensation. The appellant is 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 appellant is 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 appellant is suffering from mental agony. The appellant has 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. The notice of this appeal was issued to the respondents. The respondents in spite of service of notice by way of paper publication, failed to appear. Hence,

the presen