KHUSHAL RATANSHI DHAROD Vs. RAMCHANDERA SADASHIV DIMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Impugned Order dtd. 27/8/2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in First Appeal No. A/19/1406, whereby the State Commission had allowed the Appeal filed by Rameshchandra Sadashiv Dimble and Mohan Chimalal Gujarathi, both Directors of Prabodh Artha Sanchay Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Original Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 respectively) by setting aside the Order dtd. 30/9/2019 passed in Complaint No. 78 of 2018 by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pune (for short "the District Commission") against the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 and modified as allowed only against Khushal Ratanshi Dharod (hereinafter referred to as the Original Opposite Party No.1). Vide Order dtd. 30/9/2019, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to pay jointly and severally to the Complainant a sum of ?2,03,235/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from 14/7/2017 till realization, ?25,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment together with ?5,000/- as cost of litigation.

(2.) Succinctly put, the material facts arising out of the Complaint are that Geeta Kashyap Perty, Complainant/Respondent No. 3 herein, booked a Flat No. 101 in a Project previously known as Raindrops and presently known as Prabodh Divinity, located at Pisoli, Pune, to be developed by Khushal Ratanshi Dharod, Opposite Party No. 1. Agreement was executed between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. 1 on 23/4/2012. As per terms of the Agreement the possession of the Flat was to be delivered by 23/4/2014 but the Opposite Party No. 1 could not complete the Project within stipulated period. On 11/2/2016, although the Flat was not in a habitable condition in the absence of drinking water and sewerage connection yet the Complainant took the physical possession of the Flat from the OP No.1 for carrying out the interior work in the Flat. The Complainant was making payment of the sale consideration to the Opposite Party No. 1 as and when demanded by it. On 13/3/2016, the Opposite Party No.1 called a meeting of the Flat purchasers and informed that some more work was pending and it would take some more time to complete the Project and sought balance amount alongwith maintenance and corpus fund. The Complainant paid ?61,000/- as balance amount, ?1,11,910/- towards Maintenance Charges and ?1,00,000/- as Corpus fund to the Opposite Party No. 1 on 15/3/2016. The Opposite Party No. 1 transferred the ownership of the Project to Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 vide sale deed dtd. 24/3/2016. After transfer of ownership of the Project, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 demanded a sum of ?3,03,235/- towards Maintenance Charges, Corpus Fund and MSEB charges on 31/1/2017. It was informed by the Complainant that the said charges she had already paid to the Opposite Party No. 1 and nothing is pending against her. But Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 informed her that the said amount has not been transferred to them by the Opposite Party No. 1 and she should approach the Opposite Party No. 1 for refund of the same. Ultimately, under duress, the Complainant had deposited ?3,03,235/- towards Maintenance Charges, Corpus Fund and MSEB charges with the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, a Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Commission seeking refund of excess amount of ?2,11,910/- paid towards maintenance charges and corpus fund, ?62,219/- interest plus ?4,49,683/- as reimbursement of HRA plus ?25,000/- cost of suit, amounting to ?7,48,812/- alongwith compensation of ?1,00,000/- from Opposite Party No. 1, Mr. Khushal R. Rathod and seeking ?25,000/- as cost of suit alongwith compensation of ?20,000/- from Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. Ramchandra S. Dimble and Mr. Mohan C. Gujarati, Director and Chairman of Prabodh Artha Sanchay Pvt. Ltd.

(3.) Upon consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the District Commission, vide Order dtd. 30/9/2019, partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to pay jointly and severally to the Complainant a sum of ?2,03,235/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from 14/7/2017 till realization, ?25,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment together with ?5,000/- as cost of litigation.