RUNWAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. Vs. DINESH HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions, i.e., RP No. 4890 of 2012, "Dinesh Vittal Hegde versus Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd." and RP No. 4108 of 2012, 'Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus Dinesh Hegde" have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 29.08.2012, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. A/11/444, "Dinesh Vittal Hegde versus Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd.", vide which while allowing the appeal, the order dated 19.04.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (suburban), dismissing the consumer complaint in question, was set aside. This single order shall dispose of both these revision petitions and a copy of the same be kept on each file.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant Dinesh Vittal Hegde was allotted flat no. 302 in the scheme, Runwal Pride, behind R Mall, LBS Marg, Mulund and he paid Rs.20,000/- as advance deposit for the same. (It has been wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that two flats were purchased as per agreement dated 11.05.2005). This flat was being constructed by the O.P. "Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd." and the total price of the flat was Rs.31,66,750/- including maintenance changes for the first eighteen months. The complainant paid further Rs.30,000/- on 16.12.2004 and Rs.1,16,750/- on 15.03.2005 and in this way, a total sum of Rs.1,66,750/- being 5% of the total value of the flat was paid by the complainant to the OP. An agreement of sale was signed between the parties on 11.04.2005, according to which the OP was to complete the construction and hand over the possession of the flat by 31.10.2006. The registration fee was paid on 07.04.2005 and the flat was registered on 16.04.2005. As per the record of the case, demand letters for payment of money were sent by the builder to the complainant from time to time and he kept on making payments as per the demand made in those letters. On 13.04.2008, the OP sent a letter, requesting final payment of Rs.2,89,713/- saying that 100% construction work had been completed. The said payment was also made on 19.10.2008. The case of the complainant is that the OP failed to deliver the possession to him on one pretext or the other, and finally demanded an additional sum of Rs.9,68,510/- as payment of interest vide letter dated 26.11.2009. The possession was given only after the said amount was paid. The case of the OP, on the other hand, is that this flat had been allotted under Advance Disbursement Facility (ADF), according to which after making payment of Rs.1,66,750/-, the remaining amount of Rs.30 lakh was to be paid in one go. As the complainant had opted for booking under the 'Advance Disbursement Facility' (ADF), the builder, therefore, asked them to make the payment of interest of Rs.9.68 lakh, after taking into account the dates of deposit of various instalments from time to time. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, dismissed the complaint in question. However, in appeal, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal of the complainant and directed the OP to refund the amount of Rs.9,68,510/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the consumer complaint, i.e., 05.06.2010. Against this order, the present revision petition has been made one by the complainant, Dinesh Vittal Hegde, RP No. 4890 / 2012 in which the complainant has demanded the refund of Rs.9,68,510/- with interest @18% p.a. from 6.5.2010 and a compensation of Rs.6,75,000/- for delay in delivering the possession by 18 months, a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, refund of Rs.54,000/- paid towards maintenance charges without receiving possession of flat and withdrawal of demand for additional Rs.23,675/- for maintenance from Feb. 2008 to March 2010 and demand of Rs.41,657/- for property tax and legal expenses of Rs.1,50,000/-. The second revision petition no. 4108/2012 has been filed by the Developer/OP, in which it has been demanded that the impugned order dated 29.08.2012 may be set aside.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the OP/Builder argued that the said flat had been booked by the complainant under the 'Advance Disbursement Facility', according to which the money is required to be paid at the initial stage itself and in the process, the allottee is entitled to some discount. In the present case, the complainant has been found to be a persistent defaulter, because he did not make the payment of the entire money in one instalment. The learned counsel further stated that as stated in the agreement dated 11.04.2005, the interest is to be charged @21% p.a., if any payment is delayed beyond a period of 7 days. The complainant had made full payment and the interest also before taking the possession in this case, but later on, he sought refund of the interest deposited, by filing the consumer complaint in question. The complaint had been rightly dismissed by the District Forum and the same order should have been upheld by the State Commission. Learned counsel contended that OP had sent reminders to the complainant from time to time asking him to deposit the necessary amount with them. Copies of these letters were on record.