Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

          By this common judgement, we are disposing of these two appeals.  Appeal No.1972/2004 filed by Shri Dhirajlal Gala and Appeal No.1973/2004 filed by Mrs.Sushila Dhirajlal Gala.  Both these appeals arising out of common judgement delivered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in consumer complaint No.135/2003 and consumer complaint No.136/2003 by judgement dated 15/09/2004.  Both these complaints against M/s.Bharari Developers had been partly allowed and opponent has been directed to refund `50,000/- to Mrs.Sushila D. Gala with interest @ 15% p.a. from 15/01/2003 till realisation and opponent has been further directed to refund amount of `2 Lakhs to Mr.Dhirajlal Gala with interest @ 15% p.a. from 15/01/2003 till realisation and further directed to pay compensation of `10,000/- to each of the complainant.  Aggrieved by this order, org. complainants have filed these two appeals.  Both complainants who are appellants are husband and wife.

2.       The fact of the case is that Mrs.Sushila Dhirajlal Gala, who filed consumer complaint No.135/2003 against opponent-M/s.Bharari Developers had approached M/s.Bharari Developers for booking of flat No.703 on 7^th floor admeasuring 440 sq.ft. for agreed price of `3 Lakhs.  Complainant had paid `50,000/- at the time of execution of agreement.  Said agreement was got registered.  Complainant pleaded that she was supposed to get possession of the flat by end of 2000 but the opponent was unable to complete the said project because the Corporation had sanctioned plan for ground + four floors only and rest of the building was illegal.  Opponent returned the amount of `50,000/- by giving cheque No.253749 drawn on Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd., Thane.  However, when presented for encashment, said cheque was returned with endorsement “Insufficient Fund”.  Complainant pleaded that she had already paid `6,50,000/- to the opponent.  Complainant further pleaded hat common Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the parties and as per M.O.U. opponent was supposed to hand over possession of the flat to the complainant within 12 months from the date of M.O.U. and if it is not given within 12 months opponent should return the money paid by the complainant with interest @ 15% p.a.   The complainant filed consumer complaint claiming damage of `50,000/- and `6,50,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the opponent. 

3.       In other complaint filed by Mr.Dhirajlal Gala, it appears that he had booked flat No.704 on 7^th floor, admeasuring 655 sq.ft. with agreed price of `5 Lakhs.  Complainant paid `2 Lakhs at the time of agreement.  Agreement was duly registered.  As per the agreement, developer was supposed to give possession of the said flat by end of 2000, but opponent was unable to complete the project as Corporation had sanctioned plan for building to be constructed ground + 4 floors and rest of the building was illegal.  Therefore, opponent returned the amo