GIGEO REAL ESTATE Vs. SHAKUNTALALA PRAKASH CHOUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Chaitanya G Barapatre, Advocate, for the petitioner.

(2.) This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur dated 20.12.2019 and 07.01.2021 passed in First Appeal No. A/15/178 of 2015 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur dated 25.02.2014, passed in Consumer Complaint No.633 of 2012) whereby State Commission has rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside abatement and substituting the heirs of Smt. Shakuntala Prakash Choudhari (sole respondent) and dismissed the appeal as abated.

(3.) Smt. Shakuntala Prakash Choudhari (the respondent) filed Consumer Complaint No. 633/2012, for directing the petitioner to deliver possession of (i) flat No. 33 (admeasuring 550 Sq.ft.), at third floor of the building E-6 (ii) flat No. T-52 (admeasuring 825 sq.ft.), at 5 th floor, in the building named as Tower over plot No. 198 and 309, at Vyankatesh Nagar, Nagpur to her and execute sale deeds in respect of aforementioned flats, in alternative to pay present market price of these flats or give other flats of the same area in same locality and execute sale deeds of those flats in her favour, to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony, Rs.5000/- as cost of the litigation and any other relief which may deem fit and proper. It was stated that the petitioner advertised for construction of residential flats at Vyankatesh Nagar, Nagpur, in 2005. The respondent paid Rs.4,25,000/- and Rs.6,40,000/- respectively on 17.01.2005 for the aforesaid flats and agreements in her favour were executed by the petitioner (the developer) and the owner of the land. The complainant also paid Rs.23000/- for electricity connection and meter. Under the agreement, possession over the flats had to be delivered in 18 months. However, due to some dispute with the land owners, the construction could not be started at the time of agreement. The dispute with land owners was settled on 14.10.2006. Then the constructed was started in 2007 and completed in 2011. The complainant requested to execute sale deeds of the flats in her favour and hand over possession of the flats to her but the petitioner was avoiding her requests. The complainant gave legal notice on 04.07.2012 but in spite of service of the notice neither any reply was given nor sale deeds were executed. On these allegations, the complaint was filed on 10.09.2012.