KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION Vs. ANUPRITA & 2 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Revision Petitions, by Opposite Party No. 1 in the Complaint, the Developer of the Row Houses situated at Sahyadri Hills, Bagadia Nagar, Garkheda, Aurangabad, are directed against the order, dated 04.12.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 683 and 730 of 2014. By the impugned order, while allowing the Appeal filed by Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, namely, M/s Ashwini Trading Co., the land owner, against the order dated 11.09.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Aurangabad (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No.608/2009, the State Commission has directed the Petitioner to execute the sale deed in respect of Row House, No. M-12, allotted in favour of the Complainants, at their cost by receiving balance amount of Rs. 67,250/- and also obtain and provide to them the completion certificate in respect of the house from the concerned Authority.

(2.) The grievance of the Petitioner in these Petitions is that apart from the fact that the Petitioner Firm had to receive approximately Rs. 3,89,000/- from the Complainants, as the balance sale consideration, as against a sum of Rs. 67,250/- directed to be paid by them, the direction by the State Commission only to the Petitioner to obtain the completion certificate and execute the conveyance deed is not justified, in as much as Opposite Party No. 2 was equally responsible for obtaining the said certificate. In support, reliance is placed on the joint-venture agreement, between the Petitioner and the said M/s Ashwini Trading Co., dated 31.03.2001.

(3.) Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, in the light of the documents on record, we are of the view that the Revision Petitions are without any substance. The afore-said directions regarding the balance amount due from the Complainants to the Petitioner is based on the documents placed on record by the parties. The finding of the State Commission that all the amounts paid by the Complainants were duly received by the Petitioner Firm is not shown to be perverse in any manner. In that view of the matter, no ground is made out to direct the Complainants to pay to the Petitioner any amount in excess of the aforesaid amount.