Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 7th April, 2010, passed in Consumer Complaint No.42/2009 Smt.Sunanda Nagnath Dhadve V/s. Smt.Aarati Ranjit Sasne, by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Additional Pune District (‘Forum below’ in short).
(2) It is a consumer dispute filed by flat purchaser against the builder and which was partly allowed directing the builder to handover possession on receiving balance consideration and feeling aggrieved thereby the builder preferred this appeal.
(3) It is the case of Respondent/original Complainant Smt.Sunanda Nagnath Dhadve (hereinfer referred to as the ‘Respondent’) that Respondent agreed to purchase a flat bearing no.14 admeasuring 500 sq.ft. for total consideration of `2,42,000/- as per agreement dated 16.08.2002. When she went to pay further consideration of `1,50,000/- by cheque, the builder refused to accept the same and demanded more price for the flat. He also avoided to handover the possession of the flat completing the transaction. Therefore, ultimately this consumer complaint was filed by the complainant after exchange of notices between he parties.
(4) We heard both sides. Perused the record.
(5) According to builder except `10,000/- received as booking amount no other consideration was received from the purchaser and additional amount mentioned in the agreement were shown as and by way of adjustment, so that the flat purchaser could get the loan. However, the builder failed to substantiate his such statement. He also denied that thereafter the Respondent came with a cheque of `1,50,000/- towards further consideration but he refused to accept the same. Considering the preponderance of probabilities, we find it safe to accept the contentions of Respondent/Complainant on the point and hold that the Complainant did want to the appellant to pay the balance of consideration but the Appellant refused to accept the same.
(6) The agreement is not in dispute. It is tried to be alleged that by letter dated 13.11.2008 the Complainant terminated the agreement with the Respondent and therefore, there arise no question of deficiency in service on the part of the builder. Respondent denied having received any such letter. When we made enquiry from the builder as to what evidence is led by it on the disputed facts and particularly to prove that such notice of termination was sent to and received by the Respondent, the answer was that no such evidence was actually led except filing the copy of the document. Furthermore, considering the totality of the circumstances and the case of the Complainant that when she tendered further consideration of `1,50,000/- the builder demanded more price appears to be more probable and acceptable. Such termination, therefore, is a camouflage to pressurize the flat purchaser to get more price and value for his flat. Therefore, such termination being arbitrary and malafide, cannot be accepted.
(7) It is also argued on behalf of the builder that as per agreement builder has received part consideration of `50,000/- in cash which is acknowledged in agreement itself, balance consideration of `1,92,000/- was to be paid within a period of 3/4 months at the time of handing over possession of the flat. Said clause is rather advantageous to the flat purchaser since balance consideration was payable at the time of handing over possession of the flat and, admittedly, such possession is never handed over to the flat purchaser or offered to the flat purchaser by the builder.
(8) Thus, considering all these aspects, we find no reason to take different view than what has been taken by Forum below and hence, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
