L K CONSTRUCTION Vs. BALIRAM & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.8.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. A/12/47 Mr. Balram & Anr. Vs. Mr. Subhash by which, while allowing appeal, order of District forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondents had booked an apartment by entering into an agreement for purchase of an apartment bearing No.212 admeasuring 56.671 sq.mts. with an undivided share of 2.506 % for a consideration of Rs.11 lacs in the housing scheme floated by the OP/Respondent under the name and style 'Aishwarya Residency'. The complainant paid Rs.40000/- on 7/4/2009 as booking amount towards purchase of the said flat and the Opponent also issued receipt regarding the same. The Opponent further demanded Rs.60000/- so that a registered Agreement to Salecould be executed. The complainants, therefore, also paid an amount of Rs.60000/- on 4/5/2009 by cheque bearing No.97311. The Opponent inspite of receiving Rs.1 lac from the complainants avoided to execute the Agreement to Sale. However, on persistent insistence of the complainants, the Opponent agreed to execute the Agreement to Sale provided the complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/- more. Since the complainants had already paid Rs.1 lac, they had no other option than to pay as per the demand of the OP. Therefore, on 14/7/2009, the complainants paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the Opponent. However, the OP did not pass a proper receipt but just issued a temporary receipt (Kacchi Pavati) and when the complainants demanded a proper receipt, in respect of payment of Rs.2,50,000/- the OP threatened that he will not execute the Agreement to Sale, if such demand is insisted. The Opponent executed an Agreement to Sale on 14/7/2009 in which not only he deliberately avoided to mention the payment of aforesaid amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, but also retained the rights over the common area like the terrace etc. and FSI, if enhanced in future. The Opponents formed an Association of Apartment Owners. However, the Opponent retained the right to receive rent from the cellular phone & DTH Company who were given part of the terrace on lease. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and admitted sale of apartment for a sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and also submitted that possession was handed over to complainant on 15.7.2010 and sale deed was also registered on 1.10.2010. OP denied receipt of Rs.2,50,000/- and further submitted that excess amount was received towards extra construction work and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and OP was directed to refund Rs.2,50,000/- with 6% p.a. interest against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.