MANIK DEVELOPERS Vs. ASHWINI PANDERKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under Sec. 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1280 of 2016 in which order dtd. 11/5/2016 of Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 88 of 2013 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dtd. 8/6/2018 of the State Commission.

(2.) While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA No. 1280 of 2016 before the State Commission the, Revision Petitioners were OPs and Respondent was Complaint before the District Forum in CC no. 88 of 2013.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: as per Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU), complainant booked flat no. 306 in 'Datta Enclave' situated on 3rd Floor for total consideration of Rs.13.00 lacs and paid booking amount in the sum of Rs.50,000.00. Thereafter, he paid Rs.5,60,000.00 from time to time. According to complainant, the OPs were demanding money without executing agreement for sale. The complainant issued letter informing that she is ready and willing to execute the agreement for sale and requested the OPs to take appropriate steps. As the OPs were not ready to execute the agreement for sale, the complainant informed the matter to the Police Station. The police called both the parties on 4/7/2012 to resolve the dispute and agreement was executed on 19/1/2013 whereby OPs agreed to refund the amount of Rs.17.00 lacs to the complainant. The OPs did not comply the said agreement. According to the complainant, as OPs failed to comply with the said agreement, the booking of said flat is still in existence. The complainant is ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.7,40,000.00. The OPs are neither refunding the amount nor they are giving possession of the flat. Being aggrieved, the complainant has filed CC before the District Forum. The District Forum vide order dtd. 11/5/2016 partly allowed the CC. Being aggrieved, the OPs preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dtd. 8/6/2018 dismissed the Appeal. Therefore, the Petitioners are before this Commission now in the present RP.