MAGAN Vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.07.2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/OPs no. 1 & 2 are builders and developers and have launched a Scheme at Deogiri Valley of village Mitmita, Aurangabad for construction of houses. The petitioner/complainant booked a row-house with the OPs and vide agreement dated 08.10.2007 agreed to purchase 3 BHK row-house bearing number A65 in the scheme for consideration of Rs.4,95,000/-. He deposited booking charge of Rs. 5,000/- and as per his version, he made a total deposit of Rs. 75,000/- before the agreement, although the agreement says that he has deposited only Rs. 30,000/-. As per the agreement, the remaining amount was to be paid within one month from the date of agreement and the OPs/Builders had agreed to hand-over possession of the house within five months from the agreement. It was also stated that the petitioner shall pay an interest @3% per month for delayed payment. It has been stated in the complainant that he had shifted to Osmanabad and also remained seriously ill for four months. The respondents cancelled the said agreement. The petitioner filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that the booking amount of Rs. 5,000/- paid by him and his deposit of Rs. 75,000/- should be paid to him along with interest @18% p.a. and also a sum of Rs. 50,000/- should be given to him as compensation for mental harassment and loss. The District Forum vide their order dated 8.12.2011, directed that respondent no. 2 should make payment of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant. An appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 23.07.2013. It is against this order that the present petition has been made before us.

(3.) At the time of admission hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that although the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the opponents, but in the agreement, they had recorded payment of only Rs. 30,000/-. He further stated that the amount of Rs. 75,000/- should be returned to him alongwith interest @18% p.a. The petitioner was also ready to pay the balance amount of '4.20 lakh and get the possession of the house in question. The cancellation of the allotment of the said house in favour of the petitioner amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.