SHRI DURGA ENTERPRISES Vs. MALINI SAKHARAM SWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner which was the opposite party before the District Form has filed this Revision Petition against the judgment and order dated 6.6.2007 passed in appeal No. 721/06 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharasthra (in short, the State Commission) whereby the State Commission has directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 2,36,175 instead of Rs. 3,66,910 directed by the District Forum with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till realization along with Rs. 10,000 towards compensation and Rs. 3,000 as costs.

(2.) Complainant/Respondent approached the Petitioner builder for purchase of a residential flat measuring 425 sq. ft. in property No. 202 on 2nd Floor of Shant Durga Apartment, situated on plot No. 3. Hissa No. 31 (part) Mouje Majarli, Badlapur, Ta-Ulhansnagar on 16.9.1997. As per agreement, price of the flat was Rs. 2,35,875. Rs. 50,000 were paid through two cheques on 16.9.1997 and 17.9.1997 respectively. Thereafter, she paid Rs. 15,000 on 4.2.1998. Rs. 15,000 on 9.6.1998. Rs. 25,000 on 7.5.1999. Rs. 25,000 again on 7.5.1999. Rs. 32,000 on 11.8.1999, Rs. 3,000 on 17.12.1998. Rs. 8,000 on 24.10.1999, Rs. 10,000 on 5.1.2000 and Rs. 6,000 on 9.3.2000. At the time of registration of agreement, Respondent paid remaining amount of Rs. 47,175 to the Petitioner. Respondent paid in all Rs. 2,36,175. The aforesaid amounts were paid by the Respondent against receipts issued on the letter head of the builder. Receipts were duly stamped and signed by the Power of Attorney Holder of the builder. In spite of entire amount having been paid, Petitioner did not hand over the possession of the flat Respondent issued legal notices on 17.12.2003 and 20.1.2004 calling upon the Petitioner to hand over possession of the flat. Petitioner sent their reply taking the stand that they did not remember having received the payment from the Respondent. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed the complaint.

(3.) In spite of due service, Petitioner did not put in appearance and was proceeded ex parte Respondent produced evidence in support of her claim. The District Forum taking the uncontroverted facts stated in the complaint supported by evidence produced by the Respondent to be correct allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 3,66,910 to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from 16.9.1997 till realization.