DEEPTI SHAILESH PANT Vs. D.B. DEVELOPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None present on behalf of the Respondent. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner insisted that the matter be heard on merits. The final arguments on behalf of the Petitioners heard.1. The present Revision Petition, under Sec. 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Petitioners (hereinafter called "the Complainants") against the dated 19.12.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.11/21. The said Appeal was filed by the Complainants against the order dated 22.10.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.28 of 2009.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainants had booked a flat with the Respondent on 4 floor in the scheme known as "Radhainagari" and paid a sum of 1 Lakhs towards the booking amount. The grievance is that they wanted to take a loan and for that matter they needed a revised sanctioned plan but despite their repeated requests to the Respondent, the revised sanctioned plain was not provided to them and hence, they filed the Complaint before the District Forum asking several reliefs.

(3.) The stand taken by the Respondent in their written statement was that the Complainants were defaulters as they did not make the payment as per the schedule mentioned in the agreement and therefore, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong.