M/S. AMEYA DEVELOPERS PROP SURESH RAJARAM DHARMADHIKARI, R/O 2257/3, A WARD PINAK TERRACES, BABUJAMAL ROAD, KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA Vs. MRS. VIDYA MOHAN SALOKHE R/O 1549, B WARD, MANGALWAR PETH KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The present revision petition no. 414 of 2016 has been filed against the judgment dated 08.09.2015 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 958 of 2015.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the respondent had purchased a unit no. B 2, Adm. 630sq feet, 1st Floor Pinnac Shivalay within the jurisdiction of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation at Rs.10.50 lakh from the petitioner/ opposite party. Sale agreement was entered between the parties on 09.05.2011. The aforesaid flat was initially used by one Mr Sandip Redekar as a tenant. Therefore, it was agreed between the parties that Rs.10.00 lakh would be paid as a sale price of the flat and Rs.50,000.00 would be paid for the interior repairs and alterations. For payment of consideration, the respondent took a loan from the Co-operative Credit Society and paid the entire consideration of Rs.10.50 lakh. Thereafter, the respondent decided to take a loan from the LIC Housing Finance Limited to settle the loan of credit Co-operative Society. The LIC Housing Finance Limited vide their letter dated 19.08.2011 on scrutiny of the loan application, enclosed documents asked for some clarifications. It was then that the respondent came to know that the said suit property was sanctioned for the purpose of commercial use and the municipal authorities had not agreed to sanction the property for residential purpose. The respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolhapur ('the District Forum') alleging deficiency in service and sought directions against the petitioner to get sanction for the aforesaid property from the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation as a residential area as also execution of the sale deed and Rs.10,000.00 for mental agony.

(3.) The petitioner denied the allegations. He stated that the said sale price of the unit was agreed at Rs.15.62 lakhs. The respondent had only paid Rs.10.50 lakhs till 19.04.2011 and thereafter the respondent did not pay the agreed amount of Rs.05.15 lakhs, and so possession of the said unit was not given to him. The respondent was also liable to pay the additional registration charges, MSEB Charges, lift and maintenance. The petitioner alleges that the respondent has filed the complaint in order to avoid payment of the due amounts.