Fraud in legal proceedings invalidates claims; complainants must disclose all material facts.

ORDER (ORAL

These two Appeals have been filed by partners of M. K. builders and Developers against the order dated 30.09.2015 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.289 of 2002.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.1 had filed the Complaint against M. K. builders and Developers and its two partners, namely, Mr. Miranda and Mr. Girish Kulkarni and also against Snehal Park Co-operative Housing Society Limited alleging deficiency in service against them. It is submitted by her that she had purchased flat No.301 in Snehal Apartment situated at 3^rd floor, S No.382A, P. No.152 Malonde, Vasai admeasuring 1145 sq. ft. from the Opposite Parties. It was further contended by her that the Appellants before me, who were the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 before the State Commission, had promised her to construct additional room of 200 sq. ft. and a terrace admeasuring 365 sq. ft. and thus they had promised to construct additional area of 565 sq. ft. They had promised to hand over total area of 1145 sq. ft. for consideration of ₹7,15,000/- and the room of 200 sq. ft. was to be constructed @ ₹715/- per sq. ft. costing ₹1,43,000/- and the terrace of 365 sq. ft. @ ₹429/- per sq. ft. costing ₹1,56,585/-. An agreement to this effect was executed on 14.02.1997 which is Annexure C-1 as mentioned in the Complaint and the receipt to this effect was executed on 28.02.1997 which is Annexure C-2 as mentioned in the Complaint. The Complainant also paid the required stamp duty of ₹25,225/-. According to the Complainant, supplementary agreement was executed on 14.02.1997, which is Annexure C-3 as mentioned in the Complaint. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties had handed over to her only an area admeasuring 580 sq. ft. and failed to give the possession of additional area of 565 sq. ft. The Complainant since was unable to keep regular follow up due to illness of her mother whom she was visiting at Kutch in Gujrat. So there was some delay in filing the Complaint. It was further alleged that the Opposite Party No.4, which was the society, obstructed the construction of additional area of 565 sq. ft. and the conveyance deed between the society and the other Opposite Parties was still not executed. It had been contended by the Complainant in her Complaint that the act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and sought direction for possession of 565 sq. ft. and also refund of ₹1,56,585/- and interest @ 18% p.a. from 1997 till the date of realization and also to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the society, i.e., Opposite Party No.4 and also sought ₹50,000/- as compensation, ₹20,000/- as cost of construction and ₹15,000/- as legal fee

3. When the notice of the Complaint was issued, the Complaint was contested only by Mr. Miranda, the Appellant and the other Opposite Parties i.e. the firm and the other partners Mr. Girish Kulkarni and the Society (Opposite Party No.4) were ex parte. The Appellant Mr. Miranda had raised several contentions in the written version which included that the Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction and that the Complaint was barred by limitation and that there was never any promise to hand over the possession of 1145 sq.ft. It was submitted that the promise was to hand over 580 sq.ft. which had been duly handed over vide agreement to sell dated 14.02.1997. It is submitted that there