MOHINI NISHIKANT PATHAK Vs. PARMESHWARI SCHEMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 12. 02. 2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. RBT/12/886 in FA No. A/10/293, "Mohini Nishikant Pathak versus Parmeshwari Schemes & Ors. ", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 2 0 2010, passed by the District Forum Pune, in consumer complaint No. PDF/293/2008, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that as per registered agreement dated 07. 10. 2006 between the parties, the petitioner/complainant Mohini Nishikant Pathak agreed to purchase flat No. 501, admeasuring about 104. 70 sq. mtr. alongwith terrace and parking area, constructed by the respondents/Opposite parties (OPs) Builders for a total consideration of Rs. 15,38,813/-. The complainant made a total payment of Rs. 4. 50 lakh to the Builder from time to time. The possession of the flat was agreed to be given by 30. 11. 2006. However, on the failure of the Builders/OPs to deliver the possession by the said date, the consumer complaint in question, was filed by the petitioner, seeking directions to the OP builders to complete the construction of the flat in all respects as per the approved building plan by the Pune Municipal Corporation and to hand over the possession of the property to her, after receiving the full and final payment for the same. It was also demanded in the consumer complaint that the OPs should be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the complainant towards the rent already paid by her for temporary accommodation and further to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as rent. A compensation of Rs. 10 lakh for deficiency in service/unfair trade practice was also demanded through the consumer complaint.

(3.) The OP Builders did not put in appearance before both the consumer fora below and hence, the orders were passed in their absence.