PRAHALAD NARAYAN GAIKWAD PROP OF M/S OM GANESH SAPTASHRUNGI, CONSTRUCTION, BUILDERS AND DEVELOPER, PANCHSILNAGAR, GALEGAON, MOHANE, TAL KALYAN, DISTRICT Vs. BHARAT YADAV CHANNE KHARADI ANANDNAGAR, TAL SHAHAPUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party against the impugned order dated 06.05.2014, passed by the Maharashtra, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.1242 of 2009.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per Respondent/Complainant are that he had filed a complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') by alleging deficiency in service against the petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s. Om Ganesh Saptashrungi Constructions Company and had undertaken construction work on Survey No.135, plot no.63, area 404 square. meter. under name of Saptashrungi Apartment. On instigation of the petitioner, respondent agreed to purchase flat no.102 admeasuring 800 square.ft. from Saptashrungi Apartment for the consideration of Rs.5,00,000.00. Agreement to purchase the flat was executed on 11.01.2008, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Shahapur, Distt. Thane. In pursuance of the agreement, respondent had paid an amount of Rs.75,000.00 on 30.11.2007 to the petitioner. He also paid an amount of Rs.75,000.00 on 06.12.2007 and an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 on 25.10.2008. Payments were duly received vide receipts no.124, 125 and 130. As such total amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 was paid to the petitioner. Thane District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Thane had sanctioned loan of Rs.2,50,000.00 with interest @ 9.5% p.a. to the respondent for purchase of flat. Respondent undertook to repay said loan amount by monthly instalments. It was agreed that flat no.102 having area of 800 square. ft. would be mortgaged to the Bank against the loan. In spite of receipt of huge amount of Rs.2,50,000.00, the petitioner without any intimation sent back the cheque of Rs.2,50,000.00 to the respondent. Respondent had insisted that the petitioner accept the said cheque.

(3.) Petitioner filed a report on 13.10.2008 against the petitioner with the Police Inspector, Vashind, but no action was taken. Petitioner failed to hand over possession of the flat no.102 to the respondent in spite of receipt of huge amount and in spite of registration of agreement. Hence, respondent has suffered mental pain and agony. Therefore, he has filed complaint against the petitioner and has claimed possession of flat no.102 from Saptashrungi Apartment with Occupation Certificate, Completion Certificate. He sought direction to be given to the petitioner for continuous supply of water, continuous supply of electricity, formation of cooperative society which should be registered. Respondent had also claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 towards compensation for mental pain and an amount of Rs.50,000.00 towards costs of litigation.