[RBT/CC/17/892]

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSALCOMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. RBT/ CC/17/ 892

in

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.CC/12/18

M/s CLASSIQUE,

A partnership firm,

Having its office at:

AF 1/2, Al-meen Complex,

Cujira, Santa Cruz,

Goa 403 005.

Through its partner

Mr.VijayUmershi Jobanputra.

...........Complainant

Versus

ROYAL PALMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,

Survey No.169, Aarey Milk Colony,

Near Unit No.26, Goregaon (East),

Mumbai 400 065.

Through Managing Director

............Opponent(s)

BEFORE:

D.R.SHIRASAO, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

DR.S.K.KAKADE, MEMBER

For the

Complainant(s):

Advocate Mr.Nikhil Karnavat

For the

Opponent(s):

None.

ORDER

Per Dr.S.K.Kakade, Hon’ble Member:

[RBT/CC/17/892]

1. The complainant, partnership firm had approached this State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Maharashtra Mumbai

for seeking Redressal of dispute between it and developer Royal

palms (India) Private Limited by filing consumer complaint number

CC/12 /18. The State Consumer Commission, Mumbai dismissed

the complaint by order dated 7^th October 2016, holding that the

complainant is not “consumer” as per definition under the Consumer

Protection Act 1986. Aggrieved by the order of this State Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, complainant approached National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and filed the Appeal

against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, first appeal number 34 of 2017. After hearing both the

parties,

Hon’ble

National

Consumer

Disputes

Redressal

Commission set aside impugned order of this Commission holding

that the firm was not engaged in real estate business andremanded

back the matter to this Commission for fresh hearing by order dated

18^th April 2017. This complaint was registered as RBT/ CC/17/692.

Accordingly both the parties appeared before this Commission. The

brief facts - details of this case are as follows.

2. Complainant, M/S Classique, registered partnership firm, booked a

flat No.1817 admeasuring 1244 sq.ft. on 8^th floor of building called

“Golf View Apartment” situated at village Marol- Maroshi, Taluka

Andheri, Mumbai ( “subject flat” in short), for consideration of

Rs.61, 00, 000/- ( Rs. Sixty One lakh only). Opponent had issued a

letter in favour of complainant on 20^th December 2006 in respect of

said booking of the flat by the complainant. For said booking,

complainant made payment of earnest money of Rs. 9,49,000/-, vide

cheque dated 28^th November 2006. Complainant had also paid

[RBT/CC/17/892]

amount of Rs. 1, 51,000/- to opponent for parking area. Opponent

agreed to deliver possession within a period of 2 years. Complainant

made payment from time to time and total amount of Rs. 40, 09, 414

/- (Rs.Forty Lakh Nine thousand Four hundred fourteen only) was

paid by the complainant to the opponent. Even on the request from

the complainant to opponent to execute the agreement for sale of

flat, it was not executed by opponent. Opponent did not obtain

occupancy certificate and completion certificate and failed to hand

over possession of the flat. Hence complainant filed consumer

complaint with a prayer that opponent be directed to deliver

possession of the subject flat. Complainant also prayed that

Opponent be directed to pay amount of Rs. 21, 60, 000 /- as

compensation on account of mental agony and hypothetical loss of

rent from 1^st January 2007 till filing of the complaint. Complainant

also prayed that the opponent be directed to execute sale deed or

deed of transfer in respect of subject flat in favour of the

complainant. Complainant also prayed that opponent be directed to

pay compensation of Rs 20,000/- per month for hypothetical loss of

rent from the date of filing of the complaint till delivery of

possession.

3. Opponent opposed the complaint by filing written version and has

not disputed about booking of the flat by the complainant, iss

Click Here to Read the rest of this document