BANKELAL RAMANAD YADAV Vs. GAJANAD PROPERTIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition under Sec. 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed against the impugned Order dtd. 18/10/2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in Appeal No. RBT/A/18/1004 in A/14/717 vide which the Appeal filed by the Respondents was partly allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are partners of the firm carrying on the business of Builders and Developers. The Respondents had taken property lying at Village Khadegolawali, Taluka Kalyan, Distt. Thane for development from Smt. Rukhmabai Arjun Patil, and 25 others under the Development Agreement dtd. 10/8/2006 for construction of a Building known as 'Gajanan Samrudhi'. The Petitioner decided to purchase a flat of 565 Sq. Ft. in House No. 205 for Rs.11,30,000.00 for which he paid Rs.1,90,000.00 between the period from 2/3/2010 to 1/1/2011. He also paid Rs.50,000.00 towards Stamp Duty and Registration, and also availed housing loan of Rs.9,00,000.00 from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The Petitioner had paid Rs.50,000.00 in cash and the balance amount of Rs.79,000.00 was to be paid at the time of Agreement. The Petitioner had repeatedly requested the Respondents to execute the Sale Agreement but they did not give any response. The Petitioner claims that the Respondents have committed breach of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA), 1963 by not executing the Sale Agreement. The Petitioner therefore sent a Legal Notice dtd. 23/2/2012 to the Respondents regarding the Sale Agreement. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondents have committed breach of the contractual obligation, deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice. Aggrieved by the act of the Respondents, the Petitioner filed Complaint before District Forum, Thane.

(3.) The District Forum vide its Order dtd. 19/8/2014 partly allowed the Complaint. The relevant extracts of the Order of the District Forum are set out as below '