Back
1
[CC/12/336 & CC/12/337]
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISISON, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NOS.CC/12/336 & CC/12/337
CC/12/336
Shri. Gul K. Achhra
r/at 2403/2404 Silver Arch
CHS Ltd., Shastri Nagar,
Near Lokhandwala,
Complainant/s
Andheri (W), Mumbai 400053.
Versus
1.Mr.Jaswant Kumar Bhatia
Occu-Builder/Developer
Prop.M/s City Builders
r/of Somar Set Apartment
Pali Hill, Bandra (W),
Mumbai 400050.
Office at-
18, Daffodils, Sector 14,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai.
Opponent/s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC/12/337
Smt. Kanta Gul Achhra
r/at 2403/2404 Silver Arch
CHS Ltd., Shastri Nagar,
Near Lokhandwala,
Complainant/s
2
[CC/12/336 & CC/12/337]
Andheri (W), Mumbai 400053.
Versus
1.Mr.Jaswant Kumar Bhatia
Occu-Builder/Developer
Prop.M/s City Builders
r/of Somar Set Apartment
Pali Hill, Bandra (W),
Mumbai 400050.
Office at-
18, Daffodils, Sector 14,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai.
Opponent/s
BEFORE:
Hon’ble Shri.P.B.Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member
Hon’ble Shri.Narendra Kawde, Member
For the
Complainants:
Advocate Smt.Rashmi Manne
For the
Opponent:
None present
3
[CC/12/336 & CC/12/337]
COMMON ORDER
Per-Hon’ble Shri. Narendra Kawde, Member
Both these complaints shall be decided by this Common Order as
involves common question of law and fact and filed against the same opponent
–builder developer.
[1]
Common facts-
Both the consumer complainants rely on allotment letter for sale of
flat in each case and paid substantive advance consideration. They are willing to
pay balance consideration as per the stipulation of allotment letter. However,
opponent allegedly failed to complete the project and deliver the possession of
respective flats upon accepting the balance consideration. Both the
complainants have filed the consumer complaints separately alleging deficiency
in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent builder developer
u/s 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(r ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Both the
complainants have prayed for the directions to the opponent to execute
registered agreement for sale of the respective flat, complete the construction of
the project, obtain occupancy certificate and hand over vacant and peaceful
possession of the flats in question in the building known as ‘City Embassy’
Situated at plot no.17, sector 7 located at Kopar-khairane, Navi Mumbai.
Complainants also prayed for award of compensation for mental agony and
4
[CC/12/336 & CC/12/337]
harassment together with interest @ 18% on the amount already received by the
opponent builder developer and also cost of the litigation.
[2]
In COSUMER COMPLAINT NO.336 OF 2012.
Opponent builder developer issued allotment letter dt.12/7/1995 thereby
offering to allot flat no.101 in the project located at plot no.17 in sector no.7 at
Kopar-khairane for total consideration of Rs.12,56,000/- admeasuring 1570 sq.ft
of built up area. The letter also contains schedule of payment stage-wise. This
complainant has undisputedly paid an amount of Rs.7,70,000/- on 12/7/1995 as
a part consideration. However, it seems that the project did not take of and
therefore transaction could not reach to the logical conclusion for completion of
project and delivery of flat in question upon accepting balance consideration.
Complainant has alleged in spite of his best efforts failed to get possession of
the flat and therefore opponents are liable for indulging into unfair trade
practice and deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
[3]
In COSUMER COMPLAINT NO.337 OF 2012
sFacts are almost similar as narrated in consumer complaint no.336
of 2012. Opponent have issued allotment letter dt.7/11/1995 offering to allot
flat no.102 in the project located at plot no.17 sector 7 at Kopar-khairane for
total consideration of Rs.13,16,000/- admeasuring 1645 sq.ft. of built up area.
The said letter contains schedule of payment stage wise proportion to the
5
[CC/12/336 & CC/12/337]
progress of work. T
