AKSHAY DOSHI Vs. G. SUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondents as detailed above, under Sec. 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dtd. 3/4/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 111 of 2009 inter alia praying for setting aside the order dtd. 3/4/2017 of the State Commission. The Appellant was Opposite Party ( OP) No.2 before the State Commission and the respondents were Complainants before the State Commission. The respondents appeared as Caveators on 17/8/2017, therefore no notice was issued to the Respondents. Parties filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 5/1/2023 (Appellant) and 28/10/2022 (respondents) respectively, Compilation of Case laws have also been filed by the parties on 16/4/2024 and 12/4/2024 respectively. Delay in filing the FA is condoned after considering the reasons stated in IA No. 9049 of 2017 and those adduced during the hearing.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the FA, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that Original Complainant Smt. G.Sivayogam ( since deceased ) booked a flat No.501, admeasuring 895 sq. ft., built up area, 5th Floor, I wing situated at Raheja Estate, Off. WE. Highway ,Borivali ( East), Mumbai at a consideration of Rs.2501.00 per sq. ft. with M/s Bhoomi Construction (OP No.1 before the State Commission), a partnership Firm in their project 'Bhoomi Breeze', of which OP No.2 and OP No.3 (before the State Commission), namely Akshay Doshi and Ramesh Mehta respectively are the partners. However, name of OP No.3 ( Ramesh Mehta) before the State Commission was deleted vide order dtd. 20/7/2011 passed by the State Commission. During the pendency of the Complaint before the State Commission, the original Complainant Smt. G.Sivayogam expired and she was substituted by her legal heirs, who were impleaded in the proceedings. It is the case of the Complainants that receipt was issued by OP(s) in respect of said flat and receiving of Rs.51,000.00 but even after receiving the said amount, no agreement was executed by the OP(s). The possession of the flat was not given by the OP(s). Being aggrieved, the original complainant filed a CC before the State Commission claiming possession of said flat or in any other building in the nearby vicinity for the promised area by accepting remaining consideration and to execute agreement for sale and register it. The Complainant in the alternative also prayed for compensation of Rs.23.00 lacs.

(3.) The State Commission vide order dtd. 3/4/2017 partly allowed the complaint with following directions :