LAWS(NCD)-2017-1-41

M/S. R.N.A. BUILDERS (N.G.) THROUGH SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MANAGING DIRECTOR/SOLE PROPRIETOR, RAJA BAHADUR BUILDING 28, BOMBAY SAMACHAR MARG, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR SHARE BAZAAR, OP. STATE BANK OF INDIA, FORT MUMBAI Vs. SURESH PANDEY AND ANOTHER R/O. AT FLAT NO. 401, GANESH LEELA BUILDING, "A" WING NEAR OLD GOLDEN NEST, OFF. MIRA

Decided On January 11, 2017
M/S. R.N.A. Builders (N.G.) Through Shri Narendra Gupta, Managing Director/Sole Proprietor, Raja Bahadur Building 28, Bombay Samachar Marg, 1St Floor, Near Share Bazaar, Op. State Bank Of India, Fort Mumbai Appellant
V/S
Suresh Pandey And Another R/O. At Flat No. 401, Ganesh Leela Building, AndQuot;AAndQuot; Wing Near Old Golden Nest, Off. Mira Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of single order of State Commission; hence, decided by common order.

(2.) F.A. No. 353 of 2014 has been filed by OP and F.A. No. 361/2015 has been filed by complainant against the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complt. No. CC/11/133 - Suresh Pandey & Anr. Vs. M/s. R.N.A. Builders (N.G.) by which, complaint was allowed.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainants booked a flat bearing no.503 on the 5th floor of 'A' building in project-N.G.Sterling, Next to Queen's Merry High School, Golden Nest, Off. Mira Bhayander Road, Mira Road (East) with opponent builder/developer on 28/06/2009 for total consideration of Rs.24,11,500.00. Earnest money Rs.51,000.00 was paid on 28/06/2009 and receipt to that effect was issued by the opponent. Remaining consideration was to be paid as per the development of the construction. They paid Rs.3,10,725.00 from time to time. However, no construction was done by the opponent. On enquiry by the complainants, it was orally informed by the opponent to the complainants about cancellation of booking as amount was not paid as agreed though there was no progress of the work and there was no demand from the opponent about the further payment. A legal notice was issued by the complainants to the opponent. However, there was no reply. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before State Commission.