SANJAY D BERDE Vs. SANDIPAK ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No. 1 - firm engaged in development and construction of the building and also against two partners of the said firm.

(2.) COMPLAINANT pleaded that O.P. No. 1 is the partnership firm engaged in the business of building/development of land and property and O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of O.P.No. 1. Complainant pleaded that somewhere in September 2004, builder/developer had advertised in local newspaper that flats are available for sale in their proposed 'Suyog Apartments'. Complainant approached O.Ps. on 10.10.2004 and after due discussion complainant agreed to purchase a flat admeasuring 835 sq.ft. in the proposed project of O.Ps. known as 'Suyog Apartments' for consideration of Rs. 40,50,000. Complainant pleaded that in furtherance, of the said agreement, O.Ps. issued letter pf allotment for sale of flat No. 601 situated on 6th floor of proposed building 'Suyog Apartments'. By letter dated 28.10.2004, O.Ps. confirmed allotment/sale of flat No. 601 for Rs. 40,50,000. O.Ps. also confirmed the manner in which complainant was required to pay balance consideration amount for flat No. 601. They confirmed initial payment made by the complainant in respect of consideration of the said flat. Complainant in all paid Rs. 10 lakhs towards the purchase price of the flat and O.Ps. issued receipt dated 11.11.2004 acknowledging receipt of Rs. 10 lakhs paid by the complainant towards the purchase of flat No. 601, 6th floor of the building known as 'Suyog Apartments', situated at Taikal Wadi road, now known as Manorama Nagarkar Marg, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016.

(3.) THE complainant pleaded that O.Ps. had assured that they would execute Agreement of Sale after MHADA and BMC gives Commencement Certificate to it. However, till filing of the complaint, O.Ps. had not entered in to an Agreement of Sale though had paid total amount of Rs. 10 lakh towards the part consideration of the flat. According to complainant, non -execution of agreement on the part of O.Ps. is per se deficiency in service and it is contrary to Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act, 1963. Complainant pleaded that after repeated assurances, O.Ps. failed to execute agreement. Complainant fears that because of rise in Estate market, O.Ps. are deliberately avoiding to execute an agreement of sale because presently market value of the flat would fetch around Rs. 60 lakh and O.Ps. are intending to sell the same to some other person and, therefore, he filed consumer complaint praying that O.P. should be directed to hand over vacant possession of flat No. 601 admeasuring 835 sq.ft. in 'Suyog Apartments' situated at Taikal Wadi road, now known as Manorama Nagarkar Marg, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016 and to direct the O.Ps. also to refund him the amount of Rs.60 lakh in lieu of possession of the flat and to direct O.Ps. to pay to the complainant Rs. 3 lakh as compensation for mental harassment and also claimed Rs. 50,000 towards cost of litigation. Complainant filed affidavits and documents in support of the claim in the complaint.