PINNACLE VASTUNIRAMAN PVT. LTD. Vs. SANJAY VILAS VALKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed challenging the findings of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur (for short "the State Commission") dated 03.06.2019 in Appeal No.1049 of 2017 dismissing the Appeal of the Petitioner. The said Appeal had been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 11.05.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (for short "the District Forum") allowing the Complaint No.91 of 2017 of the Respondent.

(2.) The brief admitted facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant is a resident of Kolhapur and the Petitioner is a builder and developer by profession. The Respondent had booked a flat No.305 situated on third floor in the project building of the Respondent. He paid a sum of Rs. 62,531/- and Rs. 17,25,000/- through cheques drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Kolhapur Branch vide receipt dated 11.12.2015 towards the booking of the said flat. Some dispute arose between the parties in respect of sanction plan of the construction which was not as per the choice of the Complainant/Respondent. The Complainant cancelled the booking transaction. He asked the Petitioner through e-mails for refund of his booking amount. Vide e-mail dated 11.02.2016, he was informed by the Petitioner that his booking had been cancelled and the refund amount had been credited to his bank account. Despite that, the booking amount was not refunded by the Petitioner as agreed. Thereafter, the Complaint was filed. As per the order of the District Forum which is duly confirmed by the State Commission in the impugned order, a notice of the Complaint was served upon the Petitioner but the Petitioner did not contest the Complaint and did not file any written version and never appeared before the District Forum. Relying on the material before it, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and issued the following directions:

(3.) The Petitioner had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum and also contended that the District Forum had acted wrongly while allowing the Complaint as the Directors were not joined as party to the Complaint and hence there was no proper service. On these two grounds, the findings of the District Forum were challenged by the Petitioner. The State Commission after hearing the Petitioner at length and considering all documents on record and after re-appreciating and re-assessing all the evidences on record, dismissed the Appeal holding as under: