LAWS(NCD)-2017-7-73

DEORAO ANANDRAO INGOLE Vs. ASHISH VIJAY SATPUTE

Decided On July 07, 2017
Deorao Anandrao Ingole Appellant
V/S
Ashish Vijay Satpute Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition was filed against the judgment dated 08.03.2013 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 156 of 2011.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are that the respondents decided to purchase apartment no. 101 admeasuring 942 sq ft on the first floor situated in the Vaishnav Dham Complex, being constructed by the petitioner/OP 1 and Respondent no. 3/OP no. 2 in Mouza - Chikhli (Khurd) for a consideration of Rs.11,71,000/- and accordingly an agreement to sale was executed between the parties on 09.05.2008. The respondent paid an amount of Rs.2,92,000/- to the opposite parties from time to time. The respondents got a loan of Rs.10,28,401/- sanctioned from the HDFC Bank. The Bank asked the respondent to submit the no-objection certificate from the Nagpur Improvement Trust and the sanctioned map of the proposed construction. The respondent could not be disbursed the loan amount as the opposite parties did not provide the documents to the respondent. The opposite parties compelled the respondents to take the loan from the State Bank of India, Nagpur. The opposite parties sent a notice to the respondent and stated that the construction was complete and asked the respondent to get the sale deed executed. However, the respondent submitted that the construction was not completed. Since, the opposite parties have not supplied the respondent with the documents, the respondent had to suffer physically and mental agony and therefore, had submitted a complaint and demanded for submission of the sanctioned map and no-objection certificate from the Nagpur Improvement Trust, payment of Rs.50,000/- towards physical and mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the complaint and some other reliefs.

(3.) Notice of the complaint was served on the opposite parties. The OP nos.1 and 2, i.e., petitioner and respondent no. 3 herein have jointly submitted their written statement.