RADHA V. NAIR Vs. CHEMBUR ESTATE ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aforesaid First Appeals have been filed against the order dtd. 1/7/2015 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (in short "the State Commission) in in CC/08/94 and CC/08/95, whereby the State Commission disposed of the Consumer Complaints filed by the Complainants.

(2.) Alongwith First Appeals Nos.656/2015 and 657/2015, the Appellants/Complainants have filed IAs 2339/2015 and 2340/2015 for condonation of delay of 1 day and 30 days respectively. Similarly, alongwith First Appeals Nos.702/2015 and 703/2015 the Appellants/Opposite Party No.1 has filed IA/6156/2015 and 6158/2015 for condonation of delay of 20 days each. However, as per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 35 days in FA/703/2015. For the reasons stated in the applications and in the interest of justice applications for condonation of delay are allowed and delay condoned.

(3.) Case of the Complainants is that they booked two separate flats of 800 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.3,20,000.00 each, which was subsequently revised to Rs.5,38,750.00. The Complainants paid 30% amount 11/10/1985 to 23/3/1986. On 13/1/1986, the Complainants were issued provisional allotment letters. Opposite Party No.1, vide letter dtd. 15/11/1986, intimated the Complainants that the project would be delayed and as soon as the project is completed, the flat would be delivered. On 7/6/1993, Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainants that the plots in question were in recreational garden zone and the same could not be allotted. Opposite Party No.1, vide letter dtd. 24/3/1998, informed the Complainants that they would be allotted flats in another building proposed to be constructed and possession would be handed over within 18 months from the said date of offer. Opposite Party No.1,vide letters dtd. 21/6/2007 and 27/6/2007, allotted duplex apartments on 5th and 6th floor and sought escalation cost for duplex apartments. The Complainants, vide letter dtd. 14/2/2008, asked Opposite Party No.1 to furnish a copy of the Development Agreement between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. The Complainants sought copy of the Development Agreement dtd. 17/5/2001 under Right to Information Act from the Office of the Sub-Registrar. From the Development Agreement the Complainant came to know that there was no provision for allotment of duplex flat. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed Consumer Complaints before the State Commission. Prayer made in the Complaint filed by the Complainant Mrs. Radha V. Nair reads as follows: -