SHIVAJI TUKARAM DONGALE Vs. ARUN DATTATRAYA WADEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, there is a challenge to order dated 2.6.2009, passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai(for short,'State Commission')

(2.) Brief facts are that Petitioner No.2/Opposite Party No. 2 is the owner of property. This property was taken for development by Petitioner No.1/Opposite Party No.1 where he is constructing "Dongale Apartments". Respondents/ Complainants had purchased shops on the lower ground floor bearing nos.1 to 3 and basement bearing nos. B-1, B-2 and B-3 in this apartment.Petitioner No.1 is a builder/ developer. He had agreed to sell a hospital area having area about 400 sq. ft. and shop no. 1 on the lower ground floor having area 150 sq. ft. and basement no.1 having area of 752.24 sq. ft. as per sanctioned plans respectively dated 10.5.2001 and 14.1.2000 to respondent no.1. Similarly, respondent no.2 agreed to purchase basement no. 2 having area 853.88 sq. ft. while respondent no.3 agreed to purchase basement no.3 having area 853.88 sq. ft. from the petitioner no.2 as per their respective separate agreements dated 25.5.1999 and 23.3.1998. Entire construction of 'Dongale Apartment' was completed on 30.4.2001. However, petitioner no.1 did not execute the deed of declaration as well as did not complete the work of plastering, doors, windows, flooring, colour painting, light fitting, water fitting, and water connections as per specification. Therefore, respondents could not start their hospital at the said place and in turn suffered loss in hospital business. It is further stated that petitioner no. 2 received some flats and area from the builder as per the development agreement. He separately agreed to sell from those areas basement no.2&3 and basement no.1 to respondent no.1 as per separate agreements.

(3.) It is further alleged by the respondents that they have paid Rs.38,000/- more than the agreed price to petitioner no.1,which is claimed back by them.