RAJA J. VAGHANI Vs. RAJ DEVELOPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is filed against the order dated 10.05.2013 in CC No. RBT/CC/12/96 in CC No. 10/80 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short "State Commission").

(2.) Along with the Appeal, IA/2240/2014, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by the Appellant. The Registry of this Commission has calculated the delay of 149 days. As per the

(3.) Appellant executed a Flat Buyer Agreement dated 1.10.1996 with the Opposite Party for sale of Flat No.602,'B'-Wing, Regency park, Amrit Shakti, Chandivali, Powai, Mumbai. Total sale consideration of Rs.3,31,500/- was to be paid in instalments. As per clause- 9 of the Agreement, the Opposite Party/Respondent agreed to complete construction of the building and hand over possession of the Flat on or before 1st March, 1998. The Complainant regularly made payments as per demands from the Opposite Party. Possession of the Flat was offered, vide letter dated 19.12.2007. Since the price of immovable property in Mumbai suddenly shot up after 1995-96 by 10 to 15 times more than the original price, the Opposite Party started demanding and pressurising the Complainant to pay extra premium, which the Complainant was not ready to pay. As the Opposite Party threatened to sell the flat to a third party directly, the Complainant entered into a Tripartite Agreement for sale of Flat in 2008 with new purchasers Mr Gajendra Prasad Yadav and Smt. Aruna Gajendra Prasad Yadav. As Mr Gajendra Prasad Yadav and Smt. Aruna Gajendra Prasad Yadav defaulted in making initial payment, as required by the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the Complainant cancelled the said Tripartite Agreement. Some of the purchasers had already taken possession and had also registered a society in the name of 'Regency Cooperative Housing Society Limited' under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Complainant became member of the society and was paying the monthly charges to the society, without taking possession of the flat. Although the Opposite Party received full consideration, neither possession was handed over nor was sale deed registered in the name of the Complainant. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant filed Complaint No.10/80 before the State Commission with the following prayer: