M/S. SHREE CONSTRUCTION Vs. SURYAKANTH PARSHURAM SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these revisions arise out of separate judgments dated 9.1.2008 in appeals filed against judgments of the District Forum. Accordingly, the revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by common order.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent entered into an agreement with OP No. 1/Respondent No. 2 for purchase of residential accommodation in proposed "Grahashanti Apartment" for which, OP No. 1 had paid Rs.6,64,600/- to OP No. 2. Complainant was informed that construction will start on 10.6.1992 and will be ready for possession before 31.12.1993. It was further alleged that OP Nos. 1 & 2 entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in June, 1992 and OP No. 1 was referred as sole selling agent for selling flats, shops, etc. to be constructed on the property. It was further alleged that till today, no construction has been made. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed separate complaints before District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that Mr. Balu Sadashiv Narkhede was one of the partners of OP No. 1, who illegally entered into transaction which is not binding on OP No. 1. It was further submitted that OP No. 1 paid Rs.6,64,600/- to OP No. 2 and in such circumstances, onus was entirely on the OP No. 2 to carry out construction or to give compensation to the purchasers and prayed for dismissal of complaints. OP No. 2 also filed written statement, denied receipt of Rs.6,64,600/- from OP No. 1 and denied other allegations and further submitted that complaint was barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OPs to refund the amount jointly and severally with interest @ 12% p.a. and further imposed cost and compensation. Appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned orders against which, these revision petitions have been filed.

(3.) None appeared for the Respondent No. 2 even after service.