M/S VORA LAND DEVELOPERS Vs. JAYANTILAL HIRJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/O.P. being aggrieved by order dated 20.12.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (for short, 'State Commission') has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short, 'Act').

(2.) Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (for short, 'Consumer Forum')on the allegations that Petitioner-firm who is Builder/Developer decided to construct buildings and respondent agreed to purchase a flat admeasuring about 885 Sq. Ft. in built-up area in the Scheme-'Highland Project', for an agreed consideration of Rs.10,62,000/-The Petitioner executed a registered agreement for sale to that effect in favour of the respondent on 8.10.2001. Respondent paid booking amount of Rs.10,000/-.Thereafter, paid an amount of Rs.3,83,114/-in cash for which Petitioner issued a receipt in writing. Possession of the flat was agreed to be delivered to the respondent as early as possible. It is alleged that the construction work was stopped by the petitioner and there has been no progress of construction on account of which, there has been delay in delivery of possession of the flat by the petitioner to the respondent. It is further alleged that respondent sent three letters to the petitioner reminding it of the agreement regarding the flat and called upon it to complete the construction and put him in possession, but in vain. Thereafter, respondent sent a legal notice dated 10.5.2007 to the petitioner and when that notice was also not complied with, respondent filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum seeking direction against the petitioner, to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the flat in question besides payment of compensation in sum of Rs.1,00,000/- or in the alternative to direct the petitioner to pay the cost of the flat, that is, Rs.10,62,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a., on the amount in sum of Rs.3,93,114/-, which was received by the petitioner from the respondent towards part-consideration for the said flat.

(3.) Petitioner in its written version stated that the construction of the project-'Highland Park' was undertaken by it but in the midst of construction, 'Stop Work Notice' dated 19.09.2002 was issued by the Municipal authorities, on account of which the construction activity was stopped. Then, a notice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1966 was issued by the competent authorities on 23.09.2002, asking the petitioner to demolish all the floors above the first floor. It is stated that in the year 2003, one Mr. Rajendra Thakkar, alongwith other citizens, filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing Writ Petition No. 379 of 2003 before Bombay High Court against Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, on the issue of permission being granted to the builders for additional FSI. In that public interest litigation, Mr.J. S. Sane, Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai; filed his affidavit and annexed to his affidavit was a list of projects and 'Highland Project' came to be included in that list. Thus, present project became subject matter of that public interest litigation. Thereafter, Bombay High Court passed an order on 5.5.2004, asking the Municipal Commissioner to consider the regularization of the buildings subject to the satisfaction of the provisions contained in the Development Control Regulations. Thus, according to the petitioner, unless the FSI is regularized, the work of the said project cannot be completed. Thus, petitioner has denied allegations that it is guilty of deficiency in service and has denied the allegations as regards its liability to pay compensation to the respondent.