SUBHASH BUILDERS Vs. UMESH SURESH JADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sh. Umesh Suresh Jadav and Mrs. Minal Umesh Jadhav, the complainants, entered into an Agreement of Sale with M/s. Subhash Builders, OP, vide Agreement dated 09.10.2006/17.10.2006. Out of the total consideration of Rs.11,03,000/-, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.2,29,000/-, on 04.10.2006 and 15.12.2006. According to the OP, the entire remaining consideration amount was to be paid in the sum of Rs.8,85,000/- within a period of 8 days from the date of execution of the Agreement. We have perused that endorsement written in hand. Since the amount was not paid within 8 days, therefore, the agreement was terminated on 11.07.2007 and the flat was sold to third-party on 26.07.2007. It is noteable that even after the elapse of said 8 days, the Builder further accepted payment of Rs.1,01,000/- by cheque from the purchaser on 15.12.2006. It is difficult to fathom, why did the OP accept Rs.1,01,000/- after the elapse of the said 8 days. The District Forum directed the Builder/OP to refund partial consideration of Rs.2,29,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. The District Forum did not award any compensation for harassment and mental agony.

(2.) The State Commission, however, granted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainants, in addition to the relief already granted by the District Forum and imposed costs in the sum of Rs.3,000/- upon the OP payable to the complainants.

(3.) Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ OP vehemently argued that the complainants made no prayer for the compensation. It was contended that the State Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record two judgments Birght Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2012 2 CPJ 151 and Ramesh R. Trivedi Vs. M/s. Amber Tower Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., 1998 1 BCR(Cons) 77. In these judgments, it was held that parties are bound by the agreement. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was wrongly saddled with the above said compensation.