Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1.      This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The case of the complainant as set out in the said complaint in brief is as under.

a.      The opposite party is a builder and opposite party No.2 is its Managing Director. The opposite party gave publicity of township namely “Palm City” which they proposed to develop, consisting of various multistoried building containing apartment, well equipped with various facilities. In pursuance of the said publicity, the complainant wanted to purchase one of the flat described in the complaint, from the opposite party. The price of the said flat was fixed at Rs.22,66,704/-. A registered agreement to sell dtd.03.05.2013 was accordingly executed by both the parties. The complainant paid in instalments various amounts including the amount by obtaining loan from State Bank of India, Nagpur, total amounting to Rs.18,13,863 towards part of the consideration out of the total consideration of Rs.22,66,704/-. The complainant also paid Rs.1,47,335/- to the opposite party towards stamp duty and other expense required for agreement to sell. The opposite party issued the receipts from time to time of which copies are filed on record by the complainant.

b.      However, it was found by the complainant that the opposite party did not make construction of particular building of the township as agreed in the agreement of the sale.  As per agreement the possession of the flat was to be handed to the complainant within 24 months from the date of agreement i.e. from 03.05.2013.  But the opposite party failed to deliver the same within that time. The complainant, therefore, issued notice on 14.10.2016 to the opposite party. But the complainant got no response from the opposite party. Thus, opposite party adopted Unfair Trade Practice and rendered deficient services to the complainant. The complainant therefore filed the present complaint seeking following reliefs.

i.        Direct the opposite party to refund jointly & severally Rs.18,13,863/- to the complainant.

ii.       Direct the opposite party to refund Rs.1,47,335/- paid by the complainant to them towards stamp duty.

iii.Direct the opposite party to pay aforesaid amounts alongwith interest @ 14% p.a.

iv.Direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10.00 Lacs towards loss sustained by the complainant due to escalation in the price of the property.

v.Direct the opposite party to pay further compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards physical & mental harassment.

vi.Direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant the litigation expenses of Rs.60,000/-.

3.      This Commission issued notice to both opposite parties returnable on 13.06.2017. The said notices were given Hamdast to the advocate of the complainant for service by Registered Post A.D. on 22.05.2017. The advocate of the complainant filed two letters issued by Senior Postmaster of General Post Office, stating therein that the envelop containing those notices were duly delivered to the addressee. Considering that the notices were issued on the same address of the opposite parties given in the complainant and considering the aforesaid letters dtd. 28.08.2017 produced by complainant’s advocate, we find that the above notices issued to opposite party Nos.1 & 2 have been duly served to them. Therefore, this Commission as per order dtd.05.09.2017 proceeded exparte against both of them.

4.      The complainant in support of the complaint filed copies of agreement of sale, acknowledgement receipts, legal notice, postal receipts and postal acknowledgement card. Today advocate of the complainant also filed Pursis alongwith the certificate issued by State Bank of India, Branch RACPC, Nagpur.  The details of the payment made by the complainant to the opposite party as regard the amount, date and page number of the document filed on record are given in the Pursis.  Advocate of the complainant also filed Written Notes of Arguments.

5.      Today we have heard advocate Mr N R Bhishikar appearing for the complainant.  As observed above, the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 are already proceeded exparte.  The learned advocate of the complainant during the course of arguments took us through the receipts / acknowledgements and submitted that said documents support the case of the complainant about the payment made by her to the opposite party from time to time as stated in detail in complaint.  He further submitted that copy of the registered agreement to sell filed on record also fully support the aforesaid case of the complainant.  He, therefore, submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the complaint and documents filed on record.  He also submitted that last payment was made on 29.11.2015 and the complaint was filed on 13.12.2016 and therefore it is within limited.  Thus, according to the learned advocate of the complainant, the opposite party committed breach of the agreement and did not deliver the possession of the flat as agreed and hence it is proved that the opposite party adopted Unfair Trade Practice and rendered deficient service to complainant.  Therefore, all the reliefs sought for in the complaint may be granted.

6.      We find that as the complaint and the documents filed on record went unchallenged, as opposite party remained absent before this Commission after service of notice, there is no reason to disbelieve the same.  Almost receipts of all the payment made from time to time are filed on record, of which detailed list is given today in a Pursis filed by the advocate of the complainant.  Thus, out of total consideration of Rs.22,66,704/-, the complainant paid Rs.18,13,863/- and also paid Rs.1,47,335/- towards stamp duty and other expenses to the opposite party.  However, despite receiving the substantial part of consideration and full amount towards stamp duty, the opposite party failed to make the construction of the flat and to deliver its possession within stipulated period to the complainant. Therefore, the opposite party rendered deficient service to the complainant and adopted unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to receive the aforesaid consideration and amount paid towards stamp duty, with appropriate rate of interest. Moreover, she is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5.00 Lacs towards escalation in the price of the property and she is also entitled to further compensation of Rs.25,000/- for physical & mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

          Accordingly following order is passed.

ORDER

i.        The complaint is partly allowed.

ii.       The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 jointly & severally shall refund Rs.18,13,863/- to the complainant with interest @ 14% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. from 15.12.2016 till its realisation by the complainant.

iii.      The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 jointly & severally shall also refund Rs.1,47,335/- to the complainant with interest @ 14% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. from 15.12.2016 till its realisation by the complainant.

iv.      The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 jointly & severally shall pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.5.00 Lacs towards loss sustained by her due to escalation in price of property.

v.       The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 jointly & severally shall pay to the complainant further compensation of Rs.25,000 Lacs towards physical & mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

vi.      Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.