VYANKATESHWARA INFRASTRUCTURE & VYANKATESHWARA CONSTRUCTION Vs. SUNANDA PARCHAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act'), is to the order dated 27.03.2018 in FA/16/41 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'The State Commission'). By the impugned order the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by M/s. Vyankateshwara Infrastructure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Developer') thereby agreeing with the finding of the District Forum, Nagpur, which has partly allowed the Complaint directing the Developer to execute the sale-deed and handover the possession of the Bungalow by accepting the balance consideration of Rs.4,75,000/- or in the alternative direct the Developer to refund a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- with interest @12% p.a. from 31.12.2013 till the date of realisation together with compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the Respondent, Complainants, booked a Bungalow No. 13, under the scheme floated by the Developer for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,21,000/-and initially deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the bank account of the Developer vide cheque No. 51015122. Thereafter another cheque No. 162420 for Rs.25,000/- was also deposited. It is averred that the balance amount of Rs.12,75,000/- would be paid in instalments and that the Complainants had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque on 17.12.2013 and another Rs.7,00,000/- vide cheque dated 31.12.2013 thereby paying a total amount of Rs.8,50,000/-. It is averred that only the balance amount of Rs.4,75,000/- was due and payable at the time of registration of the sale-deed.

(3.) The Developer filed their Written Version stating that the payments which were made by the Complainants were not towards booking of Bungalow but towards renovation work on their home situated at Nagpur. It is averred that the Complainants wanted to purchase a Bungalow under the Scheme of Bhandara and the initial cheque of Rs.1 lakh was given for that purpose. Thereafter they cancelled the booking of the said Bungalow and the amount which was paid to the Developer for Bungalow was requested to be adjusted towards the renovation charges for the Bungalow they wanted to renovate. It is averred that the Complainants have requested the Developer for renovation of the said house and the amounts thus paid by the Complainants to the Developer were only towards renovation and not towards any other house and therefore there is no deficiency in service on their part.