HARSHADBHAI SHAH Vs. ABHINAV ENGINEERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arise out of similar order of the State Commission, hence, decided by a common order.

(2.) These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against order dated 31.1.2012 passed in Appeal Nos. 654/2009, 719/2010 & 733/2010- Harshadbhai Shah Vs. Abhinav Engineers & Anr.; Abhinav Engineers Vs. Harshadbhai Shah & Anr.; Saujanya Co-op. Housing Society Vs. Harshadbhai Shah; and in Appeal Nos. 629/2010 & 717/2010- Abhinav Engineers Vs. Vinodray R. Shah & Anr. and Saujanya Coop Housing Society Vs. Vinodray R. Shah & Anr.; by which while allowing appeal of opposite party, appeal of complainant was dismissed and order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner- Harshadbhai Shah was allotted unit No. 711 and Vinodray R. Shah & Harshadbhai were allotted Unit No. 709 & 710, in the building to be constructed by opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 1 on the land of opposite party No. 2/respondent No. 2. Complainant made down payment of Rs. 3,66,876/- and Rs. 8,63,865/- respectively and other charges were to be paid at the time of handing over possession. It was, further, alleged that an agreement was executed between complainant and opposite party No. 1 on 15.4.2000 and possession of the properties was to be handed over in August, 2005. In spite of making full payment of unit, possession of the property was not handed over to the complainants in spite of repeated requests and opposite party wants to sell the flat for higher price. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainants filed separate complaints before District Forum with a prayer to direct opposite party to hand over possession or refund the amount with interest and compensation. Opposite party No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that as per agreement, principle amount with interest was to be returned to the complainant and aforesaid units were allotted to the complainants as security against investment made by complainants for earning interest. It was, further, submitted that complainants were not entitled to possession of the property and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite Party No. 2 appeared before District Forum but did not file written statement. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaints and directed opposite parties to refund Rs. 3,66,876/- and Rs. 8,63,865/- respectively with 6% p.a. interest and to pay Rs. 1,250/- as costs. Both the parties filed appeal before State Commission and Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of complainant but allowed appeals of opposite parties and dismissed complaint against which these revision petitions have been filed.