MAYFAIR HOUSING Vs. DEVENDRA JAGDISH JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant Mayfair Housing against the order dated 17.06.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in CC/14/372.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1-3/complainants have filed complaint against opponents for getting possession of flat from opponents alongwith interest on the amount paid on account of delayed possession alongwith cost and compensation. Complainants had booked Flat No.307 admeasuring 590.08 sq.ft. built-up area situated at 3rd floor of building named as "Daffodil" for total consideration of Rs.18,99,886/- with the appellant/opponent no.1 as per suggestion given by respondents Nos.4 & 5 opponent nos.2 and 3. It is the contention of complainants that although they had paid entire amount of sale consideration, the appellant/opponent no.1 has not given possession of flat to them. For payment of sale consideration complainants had obtained loan of Rs.14,30,000/- from respondent No.6/opponent no.4 and opponent no.4 had directly disbursed that amount to opponent no.1. Rest of the amount was paid by complainants to opponent no.1 either by cash or by cheque. In respect of that flat, opponent no.1 had executed agreement on 08/01/2010. It is the contention of complainants that as opponent no.1 had not given possession of flat to them, they had given notice in that respect to opponent no.1. Opponent no.1 by replying that notice had made claim of additional amount from complainants. It is the contention of complainants that they are not required to pay that amount. Hence, they filed a complaint against opponent no.1 before the State Commission for getting possession of flat from opponent no.1 along with interest on amount already deposited by them with opponent no.1 along with cost and compensation. It is the contention of complainants that opponent no.4 had also disbursed the loan amount in favour of opponent no.1 directly without any authority of complainants. Hence, complainants also claimed compensation for that purpose from opponent no.4. Opponent no.1 contested complaint by filing their reply to oppose the complaint. They admitted that they agreed to sell flat No.307 of Daffodil Building at Virar (West) to complainants. In that respect, they executed agreement in favour of complainants. They admitted that complainants had paid part of sale consideration to them and for balance amount of sale consideration obtained loan from opponent no.4. They admitted that opponent no.4 had given amount of Rs.14,30,000/- to them for sale consideration of flat.

(3.) Hence, the present appeal.