RASHMI GUHA NIRMAN LTD Vs. KANTILAL G SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the orders passed by District Consumer Forum, Thane, in Consumer Complaint Nos. 109/2003 and 110/2003 dated 20. 9. 2003, whereby the complaints were allowed and OP Nos. 1 to 3 have been directed to deliver flat Nos. 219 and 224, admeasuring about 850 sq mts of built up area on the ground floor of C. Wing in Rashmi Enclave, Mira Road, District Thane, within 3 months from the date of receipt of order and even further directed to pay interest per month from 11. 8. 2001 till the date of handing over possession and have been also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 and cost of Rs. 5,000 respectively. Aggrieved thereby original O. P. Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this appeal, challenging the awards passed by the District Consumer Forum. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:

(2.) SHRI Kantilal G. Shah and Smt. Damyanti K. Shah had filed consumer complaints in the Forum below alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 to 3. Complainants in their complaint alleged that they had booked flat Nos. 219 and 224, admeasuring about 850 sq. ft. of built up area on the second floor of C Wing in Rashmi Enclave, Mira Road, District Thane for total consideration of Rs. 6,80,000 respectively with OP No. 1 company and its two directors. OPs. executed agreement of sale on 24. 4. 99 and registered the same. Clause 4 of the said agreement did not mention the date of possession, but on the same day one letter was issued on the letter-head of OPs whereby OPs agreed to hand over possession of the flat to the complainant on 11. 8. 2001. But OPs failed to hand over possession or failed to return the amount paid to OPs. Complainants sent notice through their advocate. Despite notice, complainants could not get possession of premises booked by them with the OPs and therefore, they filed consumer complaints seeking possession of flats with all amenities in terms of agreement dated 24. 4. 1999 with interest @ 2% p. a. from 11. 8. 2001 in terms of letter dated 24. 4. 1999 and claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 for mental harassment and agony and Rs. 15,000 towards cost.

(3.) OP No. 3 was proceeded ex parte as he did not put in appearance, despite service of summons, but OP Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through their Advocate and defended the complaints by filing written statement. They took up the plea that Forum had no territorial jurisdiction and complaints were barred by limitation. They also pleaded that in the complaints, nowhere there was word deficiency in service pleaded by the complainants have filed Civil Suit Nos. 368/2002 and 369/2002 on 24. 5. 2002 for possession and therefore, the instant proceedings would amount to double jeopardy. They pleaded that no payment was made as per agreement and agreements or letter were not signed by OP Nos. 1 and 2. They pleaded that OP No. 3 had no authority to sign any letter or document on behalf of OP No. l company or OP No. 2 Director and therefore, they pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.