ASHTAVINAYAK DEVELOPERS Vs. ANITKUMAR S/O PRITAMSINGH PANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, by a real estate developer, is directed against the order, dated 9.4.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short "the State Commission") in FA/12/406. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 3.3.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (for short "the District Forum") in CC/213/2011. By the said order, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner herein to complete the development work, which included, provision for drinking water, electricity connection, tarred roads, laying of sewer lines, etc. within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of that order, failing which to pay a fine of Rs.50/- per day on account of delay in completing the development work. Complainant was also directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony along with a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.

(2.) It is not in dispute that a Sale Deed in respect of the plot in question, which was booked by the Respondent vide Agreement to Sale dated 16.3.2006, was executed in his favour on 17.11.2006. However, at the time of delivery of possession, admittedly, the development work for providing the afore-noted facilities was not complete. Having waited for over five years and the development of the area in question still not in sight, sometime in the year 2011, the Respondent filed a Complaint against the Petitioner, inter alia, praying for a direction to him to refund the Development Charges, amounting to Rs.2,58,375/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. or in the alternative, to develop the area in question within three months. A compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical harassment along with Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses was also prayed for.

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner mainly on the plea that having agreed at the time of booking of the plot that he would not raise any objection for the delay in development of the layout, there was no cause of action for raising the afore-noted claim. In support, Clause 10 of the Agreement to sell was pressed into service, which reads as follows :