KAMLAKAR & 4 ORS ; ARCHANA BUILDERS PVT LTD ; SUDHIR TUKARAM DESHPANDE; BHARAT TUKARAM DESHPANDE; MEDHA SUDHIR DESHPANDE Vs. KRISHNA DATTATRAYA WAHEGAONKAR & 3 ORS ; NILIMA DATTATRAYA WAHEGAONKAR; AMBADAS DATTATRAYA WAHEGAONKAR; KALA W/O AMBADAS WAHEGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the common order dated 20-07-2015 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short the State Commission) in the First Appeal No.259 of 2013 preferred by the petitioner-OP and First Appeal No.260 of 2013 preferred by the complainants against the order passed in the Consumer Complaint No.759 of 2009 by the District Forum, Aurangabad whereby the State Commission dismissed both the appeals.

(2.) Brief facts stated that the complainant No.1, Dr. Krishna Wahegaonkar and his wife Nirmala (complainant No.2), the complainant No.3, Ambadas Wahegaonkar and his wife, Smt. Kala (complainant No.4) have filed the complaint against M/s. Archana Builders Company (OP1) in the year 2001. Both the couples jointly agreed to purchase the flats from the OP. Flat No.4 was agreed to purchase by complainants Nos.1&2 for the consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- whereas the complainants Nos.3&4 jointly agreed to purchase flat No.3 for consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- each. As per the dates, the agreement to sell were executed by the opponent OP on 02-03-2003 in favour of the complainants. As per the agreement OP builder was supposed to complete the construction and handover the possession by 30-06-2003 and on the same day executed registered sale deed of flat No.3. However, the OP builder avoided to execute the registered sale deed of flat No.4 in favour of complainants Nos.1&2 as there was dispute over constructions making charges in that flat i.e. in constructing common walls between two flats. It is alleged by the complainants that there was mutual agreement not to construct the common wall. Thus, the OP builder avoided to refund the amounts pertaining to the cost of common wall. It is further alleged that OP builder has received excess amount towards making additional construction but avoided to repay the amounts pertaining to the cost of common wall and kitchen, etc.. The builder has not provided marble flooring, recovered excess amount towards excess carpet area of each flat and, therefore, failed to repay the excess amount. Also the OP builder had not formed flat owner society which was legally mandatory. Also not provided the lift. The builder failed to obtain requisite construction for operating the lift, lift was not in good condition. Therefore, the complainants Nos.3 & 4 required to spend Rs.90,000/- for repairs of the lift. The OP failed to provide other amenities. Thus, it was unfair trade practice by using sub standard material such as instead of teak wood ordinary wood was used, steel doors are of low quality. Therefore, the complainants filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Aurangabad (in short the District Forum) for the refund of the excess amount along with several reliefs and the repair charges incurred by them. Also claimed compensation towards deficiency in service and mental agony and cost.

(3.) The OPs 1&2 filed their written version and resisted the complaint. The OPs have contended that the complaint was barred by limitation. OPs have not denied about they were directors of M/s Archana Builders Pvt. Ltd. and the purchase of flat by the complainants. OP denied that they have received amount for additional construction work and avoided to repay the work of cost of common wall and kitchen, etc.. The OP contended that since the complainants Nos.3&4 have paid the entire amount. Therefore, the sale deed was executed in their name. However, they have not executed the sale deed in favour of complainants Nos.1&2 as they did not pay the entire amount of consideration. Although the complainants Nos.1&2 have received possession of the flat No.4 and they were avoiding to pay balance amount of Rs.55,000/-.