PRADIP H. BHATIA Vs. WINDSHIELD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint purports to have been filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite parties for purchase of a residential Flat in the Building namely Marvel Cerise Project, which the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 namely Windshield Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Marvel Promoters & Developers (Pune) Private Limited were proposing to construct in Pune, for a consideration of Rs.78,77,750/-. According to the complainant, as many as 216 flats were agreed to be sold by the aforesaid opposite parties in the said building. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the flats has not been offered within the agreed time since it was agreed to be delivered by 31.12.2013. It is alleged that on account of the aforesaid delay, the opposite parties are liable for compensation of about Rs.90.00 crores to all the buyers at the rate of Rs.41,55,000/- per buyer. The complainant is before this Commission, seeking payment of Rs.120.00 crores as fair and aggregate compensation to all the buyers who are allegedly suffering due to deficiency in the services rendered by the said opposite parties.

(2.) It is evident from a perusal of the complaint that the complainant is seeking an aggregate compensation of Rs.120.00 crores for all the 216 flat buyers in the building namely Marvel Cerise Project. A uniform compensation has been claimed by the complainant for every flat buyer in the aforesaid project. It is specifically alleged in para-13 of the complaint that there are "some 2BHK, some 3BHK, some 4BHK Flats". Obviously, the area of 2-BHK flat would be lesser than the 3BHK flat. Similarly, the area of 3BHK would be lesser than the area of the 4BHK flat. Moreover, it is not necessary that every buyer would have made payment on the same date. Therefore, a uniform compensation to each flat buyer cannot be claimed. Similarly, an aggregate compensation worked out by claiming a uniform compensation for each flat buyer, irrespective of the size of his flat and the dates of the payment made by him cannot be claimed. The complaint as framed therefore, is not maintainable.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the exact amount of damages can be worked out through the process of the discovery and interrogatories. However, considering that a uniform compensation has been claimed for all the flat buyers, no such exercise can be undertaken in this complaint.