Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This is an appeal filed by the original Opponent Nos.1,2 and 3 against the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in Consumer complaint No.236/2000. While allowing the complaint filed by the Complainant partly the District Forum, Nashik, directed Opponent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to refund amount of `20,000/- to the Complainant with interest @18% per annum from 23.01.1993 and `1,000/- towards costs. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed by the original Opponent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
(2) There is a delay of 50 days in filing this appeal. Appellant has filed condonation of delay application seeking condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal. Said application is numbered as Misc.Application No.128/2004. In the condonation delay application and in the affidavit filed in support thereof Complainant has made out some grounds for filing the appeal so belatedly.
(3) We perused the certified copy of the order filed along with the appeal memo. On certified copy of the order there is no mention of any date. Even Registrar of the District Forum, Nashik has not put signature. There is no outward number and therefore, the contention of the Appellant that he did not receive first copy sent by the District Forum is appearing to be genuine and proper. When he learnt from others about the order passed, he made application to get certified copy of order and then challenged the order passed by the District Forum. We are finding that the 50 days delay is properly explained and we are inclined to condone the delay. We accordingly allow Misc.Application No.128/2000 and condone the delay without costs.
(4) Thereafter, we perused the appeal memo, copy of the judgement and other documents for deciding the appeal on merit. It is to be noted that this appeal was pending in this Commission since 2004 and no steps were taken by the Appellant to take circulation of the same after we had passed order of stay on 05.07.2005. Since the appeal was unattended this matter was placed before us on 02.08.2011 for passing orders with intimation displayed on notice board and on the internet board of this Commission. On 02.08.2011 we had directed office to issue notice returnable on 22.09.2011. On 16.08.2011 as per our direction office had issued notice to both the parties but none of them are present, therefore, we have proceeded to decide the appeal on merit.
(5) We are finding that one Mr.Govind Ukhaji Ahire, employee of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. had booked Flat No.B-52 on 10.01.1993 and had paid booking amount of `20,000/- to the Appellants. The total costs was `1,60,000/- and as per stages in the construction the Complainant had agreed to pay various amounts but it was found that Appellant/Opponent had not completed the construction and had not given possession of the flat and therefore, said Govind Ukhaji Ahire had demanded back the amount with interest @24% per annum. The possession was not given and hence, he filed consumer complaint claiming refund of money. He also claimed amount of `1,00,000/- for mental harassment. He also claimed `1,00,000/- compensation for taking another flat and further claimed `25,000/- towards mental harassment and also demanded costs of the proceeding.
(6) Opponents denied the allegations but admitted that they could not construct the building and they had not given flat to the Complainant. They had raised certain relevant questions. Their internal quarrels between the partners etc.
(7) Considering the affidavits and documents placed on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed Opponent Nos.1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally `20,000/- with interest @18% per annum from 23.01.1993 till actual payment is made and also directed to pay costs of `1,000/- to the Complainant. Aggrieved by the said order the original Opponents have filed this appeal.
(8) We are finding that when builder developer has failed to give possession of the flat booked by the Complainant, it should have refunded the booking amount to the Complainant. On his failure to do so, the Complainant filed consumer complaint and the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint partly and directed Appellants to pay `20,000/- with interest @18% per annum from 23.01.1993 till actual payment is made and also directed to pay costs of `1,000/-. Said order in our view is sustainable in law and we are finding no substance in the appeal filed by the original Opponents. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Misc.Application No.128/2004 filed for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay in filing appeal is condoned.
(ii) Appeal stands dismissed.
(iii) No order as to costs.
(iv) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 22nd September, 2011
