SHAUKAT RAI Vs. FALCON DEVELOPERS PUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original complaint is filed by one Shri Shaukat Rai aged 77 and his wife Smt. Shanta Rai who entered into agreement with opposite party No. 1-M/s. Falcon Developers for purchase of a residential flat in a housing complex known as Mount Helicon in Pune promoted by the said opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 M/s. Falcon Construction is the builder. Opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 are members of O.P. No. 1,. Falcon Developers which is a joint venture firm.

(2.) The facts of the case are quite simple and mostly admitted. The complainant No. 1 having retired from service in Delhi wanted to settle down in Pune and approached the respondent No. 2, Falcon Construction for purchase of a flat No. B-1, measuring 167.50 sq. mtrs. in the housing complex "Mount Helicon" being developed by them. It is admitted that the consideration is Rs. 16,85,000/-. The complainant is also required to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards service charges. It was admitted between the parties that the possession of the duly constructed flat is to be given to the complainant on or before 31st December, 1998. As per verbal demand raised from time to time by the opposite party No. 2, the complainant paid the entire consideration of Rs. 17,35,101/- which includes service charges of Rs. 50,000/- by 16th April, 1997. Thereafter, as required under the provisions of the Maharasthra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, M/s. Falcon Developers, opposite party No. 1 executed an agreement with the complainant on 11.7.1998. This agreement reiterates that the flat costs Rs. 16,85,000/- i.e. 16.85 lakhs. That service charges of 50,000/- have to be paid and that possession of the flat handed over by 31st December, 1998.

(3.) It is alleged by the complainant that work on the proposed housing complex stopped from 7th July, 1998 and did not resume thereafter. It is alleged that a legal notice was sent to the proprietor of opposite party No. 2, M/s. Falcon Construction and to O.P. No. 3 by the complainant about non-delivery of the said flat. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 refused to take delivery of the said notice whereas opposite party No. 3 in their reply disowned any responsibility and squarely laid the blame on the shoulders of opposite party No. 2. In these circumstances, the complainant moved this Commission to seek redressal of their grievances. In their prayer they wanted a direction to be given to the opposite parties to hand over possession of the said flat duly completed in all respects together with interest @ 24% p.a. from 1st January, 1999 till the date of handing over the possession of the flat, on the amount of Rs. 17,35,101/- paid by the complainant to the opposite parties. In the alternative, it is prayed that the opposite parties should return the amount of Rs. 17,35,101/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund. In addition, the complainants claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 6,69,000/- details of which are at para 12 of the complaint.