1 (CC/16/753)

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

Consumer Complaint no. CC/16/753.

1. Shri.Shrinivas Rao Chirivella.

2. Mrs. Brahmeshwaramma Chirivella.

Both R/at. Flat No.12, Rukminiprasad-2,

Wadavali Section, Jagruti Lane,

Ambernath (E) 421 506. ... Complainant(s).

Versus

1. M/s. Ankita Builders,

Through its partners-

Mrs.Neetu Dwarkadas.

Daisy Gardens, Building No.1,

Kamalkar Nagar, Khoj Khuntavali,

Ambernath (W) Dist. Thane.

2. Shri. Deepak Gurubaksh Nankani.

Prop.Deepak Marketing,

Barrack No.63, Room No.4,

Basanthram Chowk.

Ulhasnagar- 1. ...Opponent(s)

BEFORE:

Justice S.P. Tavade – President.

S.T.Barne – Judicial Member

For the complainants(s) : Advocate- B.N.J Pillai.

For the opponent no.1 : Advocate Poonam Makhijani.

Opponent no.2. : Exparte.

2 (CC/16/753)

ORDER

(Delivered on 23^rd December 2022)

Per Hon’ble Member- Smt. S.T.Barne:

(1) The complainants Shri.Shrinivas Rao Chirivella and Mrs. Brahme

Shwaramma Chirivella filed this complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986.

It is the case of complainants that they are husband and wife and residing at

Ambernath (East). They were in need of flat in the vicinity of Ambernath area.

The opponent no.1 is builder and developer. He was constructing housing project

in the name of Daisy gardens. He was also arranging for loan through opponent

no.2 Deepak Nankani for said project, from Uco Bank Ulhasnagar, for speedy

process. The complainants entered into registered agreement to sale with

opponent no.1; to purchase the flat number 205 on 2nd floor of building number 2

of Daisy gardens Kamlakar Nagar Ambernath (West) situated at C.S. No. 23/4

survey number 15/7 at village Khojkhuntawali Tal. Ambernath, Dist. Thane,

admeasuring about 632 sq.ft., built up area, for consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-

on 25/09/2012. It was agreed to purchase said flat at market rate of Rs.

17,87,000/- when complainants made initial payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on

20/06/2011, towards booking. There after the complainants paid Rs.84,105/- to

opponent no.1 on 01/07/2012. Then the opponent no.1 insisted the complainant to

pay Rs.1,20,000/- in cash for stamp duty and registration charges. The

complainants paid said amount to opponent no.1 on 05/07/2012. Then the

opponent no.1 demanded Rs.68,000/- to the complainant. He has paid the same by

cheque dated 18/08/2011. After going through the registered agreement to sale the

complainant came to know that consideration was shown as Rs.20,00,000/- in the

said agreement. On entering into said agreement the complainants through agent

Deepak marketing the opponent no. 2 submitted the documents for the loan

proposal to Uco Bank and also paid Rs.50,000/- to Deepak marketing by cheque

for arranging the bank loan. It is the contention of complainants, that on

18/09/2011, the complainant no.2 delivered baby and she was under continuous

3 (CC/16/753)

treatment for the period of 1 year. There after the mother of complainant no.1 died

on 06/09/2013 as a result the complainants could not take follow up regularly and

they believed that the loan will be sanctioned in the course of time. However, the

opponent no.2 to their utter shock informed them in the month of March 2013 that

the loan amoun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document