LAWS(MHCDRC)-2012-9-2

MANOJ M PATKI Vs. VAISHALI M RAJENDRA

Decided On September 24, 2012
Manoj M Patki Appellant
V/S
Vaishali M Rajendra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by original opponent against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2007 passed in C.C. No. 219 /07bythe District Forum, Latur.

(2.) THE facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under: Original complainant Vaishali M.Rajendra, respondent herein filed the complaint with the allegations in brief that she had entered into registered agreement with the original opponent i.e. appellant herein on 21.11.2001 for purchasing flat for consideration of Rs. 4,90,000. Her husband paid advance amount of Rs. 1,80,000 to the original opponent. Complainant paid earnest amount of Rs. 5,000 to the original opponent. Complainant obtained loan of Rs. 4,85,000 from LIC and out of which she paid Rs, 4,36,000 to the original opponent. Complainant also paid Rs. 4,000 and thereafter Rs. 25,000 to the opponent towards the interior work and electric power meter charges. Complainant thus paid excess amount of Rs. 1,31,000 to the opponent. Opponent did not install electric power in that flat and he also did not refund Rs. 25,000 paid for that purpose in spite of demand. Complainant requested that direction may be given to the opponent to execute in her favour sale -deed of the aforesaid fiat and to refund excess payment of Rs. 1,31,000 and to refund Rs. 19,400 paid towards installation of electric meter and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 with cost of complaint.

(3.) OPPONENT resisted the claim by filing written version. It is not disputed that the registered agreement of sale was entered into both the parties in respect of flat. It is denied by the opponent that excess payment is made by the complainant and her husband to him. It is his defence in brief that complainant has illegally taken possession of the flat. He has denied that he is trying to make illegal construction on the parking place. Complainant has paid only Rs. 4,38,000 to him and that she is still to pay remaining price of flat and therefore sale deed is not executed in her favour. He therefore prayed that complaint may be dismissed.