ARINDAM ROY AND ORS. Vs. DEEPAK V. KARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 03.08.2010, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1372/2008, "Arindam Roy & Anr. vs. Deepak V. Karia" and cross Appeal No. 1587/2008 "Deepak V Karia & Ors. vs. Arindam Roy & Ors.", vide which, while dismissing both the appeals, the order dated 30.09.2008, passed in consumer complaint no. 337/2006 by the District Forum Thane, partly allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants/petitioners Arindam Roy and his wife Mamta Roy purchased a flat Unit No. 3, first floor, Plot No. 17, Sector 10, Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai for a total amount of Rs. 10,75,000/- from the OP builder. An agreement to sell is stated to have been entered between the parties on 30.04.2004, a copy of which has been placed on record. As per the agreement, the built-up area of the said flat was to be 640 sq. ft. and super built up area has been stated to be 800 sq. ft. The complainants have alleged in their complaint, interalia, that they had been given less area than agreed as per the agreement and therefore, they should be given compensation for the same. The complainants also alleged that they were prevented from going on the terrace because OPs had made some construction of permanent nature on the terrace. The OPs had also made encroachment on the ground floor as well, because of which they were not able to use the ground floor properly. The District Forum vide their order dated 30.11.2007, partly allowed the said complaint and ordered that a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- should be given to them alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. The District Forum also ordered that an association or society should be registered for the daily maintenance of the building. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioners/complainants filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed vide order dated 24.03.2008 of the State Commission and the case was remanded to the District Forum for reconsideration. The State Commission also directed that an expert should be appointed to measure the built-up area of the flat. In pursuance of this order, the District Forum vide order on 12.05.2008, appointed Sh. Jagdish Ramchandra Sabnis, an architect as "Court Commissioner", and he was asked to submit his expert report before 20.06.2008. Placing reliance on the expert report, the District Forum decided the consumer complaint vide their order dated 30.09.2008 and came to the conclusion that the complainants had been given a built-up area of 594.81 sq. ft. in place of 640 sq. ft. as mentioned in the agreement, meaning thereby that they had been given area less by 46 sq. ft. The District Forum made calculations for the shortfall, based on the value of the flat and ordered that a sum of Rs. 77,280/- be given as compensation to the complainants alongwith 10% interest p.a. with effect from 30.04.2004. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was also ordered to be given as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.

(3.) Being aggrieved against this order, both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission which have been decided vide impugned order dated 03.08.2010. The State Commission dismissed both the appeals and upheld the conclusion of the District Forum that the complainants had been given less built-up area by 46 sq. ft. for which they are entitled to compensation of Rs. 77,280/- on proportionate basis alongwith interest. It is against this order that the present petition has been made by the complainants only. The OP builders have not challenged the impugned order of the State Commission, meaning thereby that the said order has become final qua them.