ATUL PRRAVINCHANDRA SHAH Vs. PRADIP RAMCHNADRA WADKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We heard Adv.Shri S.B.Prabhawalkar for the appellant and Adv. Shri U.B. Wavikar for the respondents.

(2.) Ld.Adv.Shri Prabhawalkar takes us through the important documents placed on record and pointed out the observations of the District Forum. He vehemently argued that direction to complete the incomplete work without payment of remaining part of consideration is improper. On the other hand Ld.Adv.Shri Wavikar strongly supported the order passed by District Forum. The District Forum by clause no.2 of the operative part of the order directed the builder to rectify the defects, which are highlighted by the Court Commissioner in his report. In the alternative the District Forum directed the builder to pay Rs.2,35,195/- to the complainants for rectification of defects. This figure was worked out by the Court Commissioner and therefore, District Forum directed the builder either to rectify the defects on his own or to pay Rs.2,35,195/- to the flat purchasers for getting defects rectified.

(3.) The builder in para 54 of the written statement has given the unpaid part of consideration by each of the complainants. The builder is therefore claimed the unpaid part of consideration. Ld.Av.Prabhawalkar pointing out the outstanding figures, which are ranging from Rs. 8,000 to Rs.60,000/-expressed his displeasure with regard to observations of District Forum. The District Forum has considered the aspect of unpaid part of consideration. However, it has directed the builder to approach the appropriate authority to recover the unpaid part of consideration. We are of the view that the District Forum should have examined the correctness of the claim of the builder with regard to unpaid part of consideration. If something is found due from the flat purchasers to the builder, the District Forum ought to have directed the flat purchasers to pay the unpaid part of consideration to the builder and at the same time the builder should have been directed to rectify the defects. It would be improper to direct the builder to complete the remaining part of construction work by spending himself, when according to him substantial amount is yet to be recovered from the flat purchasers. We do not therefore concur with the said direction of District Forum.