AKSHAY & ANR. Vs. ADITYA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals have been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 10.07.2017, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in consumer complaints no. 85/2015, 86/2015, 99/2015, 100/2015 and 111/2015, filed by the complainants/respondent no. 1 in all cases, vide which, the said complaints were partly allowed and the appellants/OP-2 and 3, who are the owners of the premises in question, alongwith the builder OP-1, the Gladstone Mahaveer Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., who is respondent no. 2 in the current appeals were directed to provide possession of the developed Units as per the agreement with each complainant within six months of the order, after receiving the entire consideration amount and also to execute the sale deeds in question, for which the expenses shall be borne by the complainants. The landowners/appellants/OP-2 and 3 were also directed to cooperate with OP-1/respondent no. 2 for doing the needful as stated above. Further, the OP-1 builder was directed to provide compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to each complainant for mental harassment etc. and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. No order was passed against the OP-4/respondent no. 3, Radiant Brand Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd.

(2.) The facts of these cases are that the complainants are stated to have paid an initial sum of Rs. 11,000/- to the OP-1 builder, Gladstone Mahaveer Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for booking flats of varying sizes with them. The initial deposit was followed by deposit of a further sum of Rs. 3,89,000/- each, in C.C. No. 85/2015, 100/2015 and 111/2015 and a sum of Rs. 1,89,000/- in C.C. No. 86/2015 and C.C. No. 99/2015. It was stated in the consumer complaints that they came in contact with the OP-1 builder through a broker, who showed them the joint venture agreement entered between OP-1 with OP-2 and 3 regarding the property at survey no. 557 and 558, admeasuring 26171 sq. mtr. at village Borgaon, District Wardah, dated 06.07.2013. They were also told that the OP-1 was empowered and authorised to develop the property by constructing tenements and bungalows upon the same, and he was also empowered to enter into agreement with prospective buyers of the developed units and receive consideration amount from them. The complainants paid the initial amounts to the OP-1, but they discovered in January, 2015 that there was no construction activity on the site. The complainants also came to know that the OP-2 and 3 were fraudulently trying to alienate the property in question to a third party, who had been arrayed as OP-4 in the complaints. The complainants filed the consumer complaints in question, seeking directions to the OP-1 to 3 to complete the construction on the said property and hand over the Units in question to them, and also to execute and register the sale deeds etc. The complainants also sought a direction to the OP-1 to 3 not to create third party interest in the said property and also to restrain the OP-4 from entering into an agreement with the OP-2 and 3.

(3.) In his reply filed by the OP-1 before the State Commission, it was stated that the OP-1 had never refused to complete the construction and to deliver the possession of the flats/houses etc. to the complainants. The delay in the execution of the project could not be attributed to the OP-1 alone. The OP-1 stated that the OP-2 and 3 were acting in contravention of the joint-venture agreement entered by them with the OP-1. Due to non-cooperation on the part of the OP-2 and 3, it had not been possible to complete the construction and to develop the Units for the complainants.