P MANGALA Vs. SANDESH GOVIND BHATTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT Ms. P. Mangala filed this complaint against Mr.Sandesh Govind Bhatte and Mrs. Sandhya Sandesh Bhatte for deficiency in service. Complainant has prayed for possession of the flat and execution of conveyance deed in favour of the complainant along with cost and compensation. Details of the complaints are as under:

(2.) COMPLAINANT Ms. P. Mangala agreed to purchase a flat No. 6 admeasuring 300 sq.ft. in the building known as 'Sandesh' in the year 2000. Accordingly, Agreement for Sale was executed between the parties on 18.12.2000. O.Ps. agreed to hand over possession of the said flat after receipt of total consideration amount of Rs. 2,25,000. Complainant paid total consideration amount of Rs. 2,25,000 to the O.Ps. on 18.12.2000. According to complainant, O.Ps. wilfully delayed giving possession of the flat to the complainant even after accepting full consideration amount on 18.12.2000. Complainant stated that after constant persuasion with O.P. on 5.3.2001 with the intervention of the relatives and friends, O.Ps. consended that they will give compensation of Rs. 11,25,000 to the complainant, as they failed to give possession of the said flat to the complainant. Therefore, O.Ps. issued cheque No. 991384 dated 5.3.2001 for Rs. 2 lakh in favour of the complainant and balance amount was agreed to be paid within six months thereof and O.Ps. further agreed to cancel the agreement dated 18.12.2000. However, said cheque of Rs.2 lakh was dishonoured by the bank for "insufficient fund". Thereafter, complainant further waited for six months for balance refund of the amount, but O.Ps. did not turn up to pay the said amount to the complainant. Therefore, complainantlodgedcriminalcomplaintbearing No. 3867 of 2001 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Thane on 31.10.2001. After filing of criminal complaint, O.Ps. once again approached the complainant and requested the complainant to withdraw the said complaint against the O.Ps. On 25.2.2005, O.Ps. agreed for settlement of the claim of the complainant and requested that said Sandesh building was under redevelopment and the O.Ps. agreed to offer flat under redevelopment and/or agreed to pay Rs. 22,23,750 to the complainant and executed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 30.3.2005, wherein O.Ps. agreed to give a flat with carpet area of 900 to 1350 sq.ft. to the complainant in the proposed redevelopment scheme. Unfortunately, once again the said criminal complaint was withdrawn by the complainant against the O.Ps. and O.Ps. wilfully with ulterior motive avoided to keep their promise as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.3.2005. Therefore, complainant was constrained to file this consumer complaint before this Commission against the O.Ps., and complainant prayed for following reliefs:

(3.) COMPLAINANT filed affidavits and relevant documents in support of her claim and also filed written notes of arguments. O.Ps. were duly served with the notice but the packet returned with the remark "Left". Complainant had published a notice in the newspaper dated 18.11.2009 in Kokan Sakal. Opposite Party is resident of Andheri. However, notice is published in Kokan Sakal and that too in edition published in Thane only. This edition of newspaper is not circulated in the area where respondent resides. Therefore, the complainant was directed to republish the notice in the newspaper, which is widely circulated in Andheri particularly in the area where respondent resides. Therefore, complainant published public notice in the leading newspaper 'Dainik Sagar' on 15.2.2010. In spite of public notice, no one appeared on behalf of the O.Ps. Therefore, matter is proceeded ex parte in absence of O.Ps. O.Ps. are to be treated as served.