ADRIAN PEREIRA Vs. ANITA RONALD LEWIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant - Opposite Party under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission"), wherein the Complaint was partly allowed and the Opposite Party was directed to handover possession of the subject flat to the Respondent - Complainant after receiving the balance consideration amount from the Respondent - Complainant.

(2.) Brief facts are that on 04.07.2001, the Complainant booked a flat in Avila building, Malad (West) for a total consideration of Rs. 21 lakh, out of which Rs. 4.50 lakh was paid in cash without a receipt and Rs. 11 lakh was paid through cheque. On 07.12.2001, a registered agreement was executed between the parties for sale consideration of Rs. 16.50 lakh i.e. 21 (total consideration) (-) 4.50 (paid in cash) = Rs. 16.50. Though not written in the agreement, it was understood that possession was to be delivered to the Complainant by December 2002. But, no satisfactory progress was made up to 15.02.2003. After a meeting, the Opposite Party assured possession of the flat within three months i.e. on or before 31.05.2003. Despite the assurance, no progress was made and therefore the Complainant wrote a letter on 26.05.2003 to the Opposite Party for opting out of the project and for refund of the entire amount paid. The letter was ignored, the refund of the entire amount paid i.e. 4.50 (in cash) + 11 (by cheque) = Rs. 15.50 lakh was not made. On 17.10.2006, i.e. about 3 years and 5 months of the said letter seeking the refund of the amount paid, the Complainant received a letter from the Opposite Party alleging that she had cancelled the agreement and paid only Rs. 11 lakh (i.e. only the cheque component, which could not be denied, the same being a bank transaction), which she could collect with interest @ 9% p.a. The Complainant refused, and called upon the Opposite Party to hand over possession of the said flat by accepting the balance consideration.

(3.) On 01.04.2007, the Complainant approached the Senior Inspector, Malad PS to take appropriate action against the Opposite Party. On 12.04.2007, the Complainant learnt that the Opposite Party was attempting to dispose of the flat in question with the services of an estate broker. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed a Complaint with the State Commission for delay in delivery of possession of the said flat as well as failure to obtain Occupancy Certificate and Building Completion Certificate along with a prayer to grant compensation for mental agony.