SAMUEL DORMAN Vs. SUPERIOR BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by the appellant Samuel Dorman challenging the order dated 14th August 2015 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai (in short "the State Commission") in consumer complaint No. CC/03 /183.

(2.) The Complainant had booked a residential flat no.404 in Friends Co-op. Housing Society building with OP1 in or about the month of July 1995. The total consideration of the flat as agreed by OP1 was Rs.7,59,225/- against which complainant made the payment of Rs.8,00,000/- i.e. excess amount of Rs.40,775/- to the OP1. However, despite making payment of entire amount of consideration, complainant was not given possession of the said flat as assured to be given in January 1998. Complainant from time to time, made enquiries with OP1 about the construction of the flat however, OP1 kept on giving false promises that he will complete the construction of the building and hand over possession of the flat. It is further contended that in or about the first week of March 2003, complainant came to know that the opponent no.1 has entered into an agreement with the opponent no.2 for the construction of the incomplete work of the said building. Therefore, complainant issued a legal notice dated 17.03.2003 to the OP1 calling upon to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the flat no.404 forthwith and to refund excess amount of Rs.40,775/- paid over and above the price of Rs.7,59,225/- and further Rs.10,000/- per month for each and every month's delay from January 1998 but no positive response was made. Therefore the complainant filed the consumer complaint before State Commission seeking alternate directions to the OP1 i.e.,

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 by filing the written statement stating that they have received only Rs.5 lakhs and allegation that Rs.3 lakhs were given in cash by the complainant is not correct. It was also mentioned that the total consideration of the flat was Rs.12,65,375/- instead of Rs.7,59,225 as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party No.1 stated that complainant did not pay the remaining amount by way of installments and therefore there was no question of handing over the possession to the complainant. Accordingly it was requested to dismiss the complaint.