KARIRA DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, BHARAT NEVADRAM KARIRA Vs. MANOJ JAGANNATH PAWAR & ANR; RAJASHRI MANOJ PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in Consumer Complaint No. CC/14/532 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (in short, "the State Commission"), the Opposite Party has preferred this Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed the Complaint directing the Opposite Party to handover the possession of Flat 3D, constructed in Plot No. 12, Sector-35D; to pay interest @ 24% p.a., on the amount of Rs. 41,08,000/- from October, 2012, till handing over of the possession of the subject flat to the Complainants towards compensation after deducting Rs. 4,97,376/- due from the Complainants on different counts. The time granted for compliance was 45 days from the date of the order, failing which, the amount would carry further interest @ 24% p.a., till the date of realization.

(2.) The brief facts, as set out in the Complaint, are that the first Complainant and the second Complainant, who are husband and wife, were looking for a residential premises for their own personal use and approached the Opposite Party for purchase of flat No. 3-D on the 3rd Floor in Jasmine Building, constructed on Plot No.12, Sector 35-D, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Taluk - Panvel, District Raigad, admeasuring 575 sq.ft carpet area for a total consideration of Rs. 41,08,000/- excluding stamp duty and registration charges. It was informed to them that all necessary clearances from the concerned authorities were taken by the Opposite Party and that the flat had clear marketable title. The Opposite Party had agreed to handover all the required documents/papers necessary for the purpose of taking of a loan by the Complainants. The amounts paid by the Complainants are detailed as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_60_LAWS(NCD)8_2017_1.html</FRM>

(3.) Additionally, a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- was paid in cash towards registration and stamp duty (paid on 04.01.2012) and the Agreement was later signed on 04.05.2012. Though, the Agreement of Sale was signed by both the parties, yet, the Complainants were not handed over a copy of the same on the ground that the document has to be registered first. It was also stated that a further sum of Rs. 30,000/- was demanded towards registration charges which was to be given to the Government favouring Joint Sub-Registrar, Panvel. The Complainants were aggrieved by this demand, who had no option, but to pay the same, which was done vide Demand Draft dated 02.07.2012.