(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member) (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 18/11/2006 in Consumer Complaint No.112/2005, Shri Arvind Anandrao Gaikwad Vs. Cyril M. Fernandes, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (‘Forum’ in short). (2) This is a case against the builder for getting possession of flat agreed to be given or in the alternative compensate the deficiency in terms of refund of consideration etc. The forum accepted the contention of the complainant, but instead of directing to hand over the possession of flat, it granted alternative relief of refund of consideration and accordingly directed opponent to pay `14,68,800/- to the complainant No.1 along with cost of `5,000/- and also directed to pay interest @12% p.a. on the amount of consideration and also granted to the complainant No.2 a compensation of `1,75,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the original opponent builder preferred this appeal. (3) We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent/original complainant preferred to remain absent at the time of hearing of the appeal. (4) In the instant case, the development agreement on the basis of which possession of the flat is claimed is not in dispute. It is the complainant No.1 who refused the possession of the flat on the ground that completion certificate was not obtained by the builder. As far as complainant No.2 is concerned, an amount of `2,20,000/- is paid by her to the builder. (5) There is absolutely no evidence which is worth acceptance on its credibility to hold that the complainant No.2 who is reported dead paid an amount `2,20,000/-. Therefore, the grant of reliefs for impugned order cannot be faulted with. As far as refusal of relief for possession is concerned, in view of Sec.3 & 4 of Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act, complainant No.1 is justified not accepting possession of flat without occupation certificate. The forum, therefore, rightly directed the builder to refund the consideration. We further find that by granting alternate relief of refund consideration, in fact, it is a builder who is benefited by it. (6) For the reasons stated above, we find the appeal is devoid of merit. We hold and pass the following order. ORDER (1) Appeal stands dismissed. (2) In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs. Pronounced on 14th March, 2012. | 
