R K CONSTRO PROJECTS PVT LTD Vs. AMOL SUBHASH CHAVAN & 4 ORS ; SIDDHIVINAYAK ENTERPRISES; GOPAL TRILOKCHAND AGARWAL; KAMALKISHOR SHANKARLAL TAYAL; VIJAY MADANLAL AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by a Real Estate Developer, namely, M/s R. K. Constro Projects Private Limited, is to the order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.498 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 23.02.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Aurangabad (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No.554 of 2014. By the said order, while accepting the Complaint, filed by the Respondent No.1 herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not delivering the possession of the flat, admeasuring 850 sq.ft., booked by him with the Petitioner as far back as on 11.06.2012, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to refund to the Complainant the amount deposited by him in the year 2011 with simple interest @ 11% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits made by the Complainant with them.

(2.) The short grievance of the Petitioner is that the Fora below have exceeded their Jurisdiction in issuing the afore-stated directions as there was no such prayer made by the Complainant in his Complaint. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the short grievance made out in the Complaint was with respect to the difference in the size of the flat, in as much as, according to the Complainant, the size of the flat, agreed to be sold to him was to be of saleable area of 850 sq.ft. but the flat which was being offered was having saleable area of 460 sq. ft.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel and perused the material on record, I am of the view that the Revision Petition is bereft of any merit. Since the stand of the Petitioner before the lower Fora was that the possession of the flat was offered to the Respondent/Complainant on 25.02.2011, on a pointed query to the learned Counsel, he has candidly admitted that even till this date, Completion Certificate for the project, wherein the flat in question is located, has not been received by the Petitioner. The specious plea is that the competent Authority has now stopped issuing Completion Certificates in respect of such projects.