ORDER

1.      Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Vandana Sehgal, for M/s. Ravi Foundation and Jayesh T. Shah and Mr. Arun Panickar, Advocate, for Bhavesh S. Sheth and Hardik S. Sheth and Mr. Viraj Kadam, Advocate, for Mangesh Tukaram Sawant, in both the appeals.

2.      Aforementioned appeals have been filed from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai, dated 23.12.2013, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 185 of 2010, partly allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties, jointly or severally to furnish a copy ‘Occupancy Certificate” and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the Flat no. 902, on the 9^th Floor of “Gaurav Palace”, constructed on C.T.S. No.100, S. No.96, Hissa No.3, Malad, situated at Kandivali, Taluka Borivali, district Mumbai to the complainants, to pay Rs.50000/- as the compensation for mental tension and agony and Rs.25000/- as the litigation cost to them. The complainants and the developer, both, have filed their separate appeals. As both the appeals arise out of the same order in one complaint, as such, it were consolidated and heard together.

3.      The office has reported that First Appeal No. 249 of 2014 has been filed with the delay of 75 days. The appellants have filed I.A. No. 2629 of 2014, for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It has been stated that the appellants had received certified copy of the impugned order dated 23.12.2013 on 07.01.2014 but Bhavesh S. Sheth (appellant-1) was suffering from Sciatica pain at that time and was advised for rest. On feeling better after 25.03.2014, he approached his counsel, then the appeal was drafted and the papers of the appeal were sent through post on 11.04.2014. Due to illness of appellant-1, the appeal could not be filed in time. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4.      Bhavesh S. Sheth and Hardik S. Sheth (the complainants) filed Consumer Complaint No. 185 of 2010 for directing M/s. Ravi Foundation, Jayesh T. Shah and Mangesh Tukaram Sawant (the opposite parties), jointly and severally (i) to furnish a copy of the “Occupation Certificate” and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of flat no.902, in “Gaurav Palace” at Kandivali (West) in Mumbai in good and habitable condition; or in alternative, to purchase another flat with balcony of similar construction and with similar amenities, having equivalent carpet area of 1690 sq.ft, in the same locality and handover it to the complainants, (ii) to pay an interest @9% per annum from the date of each deposit till handing over possession, (iii) to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, (iv) cost of the litigation and (v) any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, be passed.

5.      The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that M/s. Ravi Foundation, a partnership firm, was engaged in the business of development and construction of residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. M/s. Ravi Foundation launched a project of residential complex in the name of “Gaurav Palace”, at C.T.S. No. 100, S.N. No.96, Hissa No.3 of village Malad, Kandivali, Taluka Borivali, district Mumbai. Later on, they realized that they would not be able to complete the project timely. Therefore, M/s. Ravi Foundation through its partner Jayesh T. Shah entered into an agreement with Mangesh Tukaram Sawant to complete the said project in joint venture, according to the sanctioned layout plan. Jayesh T. Shah, as a partner of M/s. Ravi Foundation executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 10.04.2002, authorising Mangesh Tukaram Sawant, proprietor of M/s. Mangesh Construction, to do construction works, to obtain necessary approvals from the authorities, to deposit tax/fee etc., to obtain connections of the amenities, to get vacated the tenants of the property, to enter in