Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

          In this complaint complainant has engaged the services of the Advocates Mr.Birendra Kumar, Neeta Dalui, Savita Suvarna.  We find that on the vakalatnama there are four signatures of the advocates. The complaint was filed on 12/05/2011.  It appeared before the State Commission on 20/06/2011.  On that day complainant and her advocates were absent and the bench consisting of Judicial Member Mr.S.R.Khanzode and Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar-Member observed that the prima facie point of limitation is involved.  However, in order to give a chance to the complainant, it was adjourned to 26/07/2011. 

          When the complaint appeared before the Bench on 26/07/2011 the advocates for the parties who are on record were absent.  This was observed by the Bench. Bench also noticed vakalatnama and the appearance of several advocates on behalf of the complainant and absence of the advocates.  It appears that one Mr.Sarkar –Advocate appeared for the complainant on that date.  However, he was not possessed of any authority issued by any of the advocates who are on record who have signed vakalatnama for the complainant. Therefore, he was not an authorized advocate either by the complainant and/or by advocate on record.  However, Mr.Sarkar-Advocate requested for the time and by imposition of cost of `2000/- we granted time to Mr.Sarkar to file his appropriate authority and/or vakalatnama and, thus, adjourned the matter to 26/09/2011, that is today.

          Today the matter is called out at 12.10 p.m. and the complainant and the advocates for the complainant on record all are absent.  No one reports the difficulty of any of them.  What is important to be noted that apart from the order sheets which are referred to above, all these order sheets are now reflected in view of the Confonet programme on internet and, therefore, it was equally possible for the advocates and the complainant to find out what are the orders passed in their complaint by the State Commission from time to time. However, complainant and their advocates have not taken cognizance of the order and today complainant and her advocates are absent.

          In this complaint, complainant is trying to seek possession of the flat admeasuring 700 sq.ft. from the building which is constructed on a plot L-2 Survey no.9, Hissa no.17 (part) bearing CTS No.18   (part) and 19 (part) of Revenue village, Powai, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District.  It appears that on 08/02/1996 the complainant has entered into an agreement with the opponent to purchase the said flat at `3,19,750/- and the said amount has been paid by the complainant from time to time. It further appears that there was some litigation in respect of this property in the City Civil Court, since the reference is made to the Notice of Motion no.2425/2004.  However, from the statement made in the complaint we find that opponents were party to the said litigation and this complainant was not a party, though the complainant had made a statement that rights of the complainant were accepted by the opponent in the said proceeding.  We need not go into this area at this stage.  What we find that the property agreed to be purchased is valued to `3,19,750/- and the complainant has prayed for possession of the said property and in the alternative, has claimed an amount of `98 lakhs.  She has also claimed an amount of `1,00,000/- for harassment and mental torture, pain and agony and `50,000/- for the expenses for correspondence, miscellaneous visits to different Government authorities/ BMC office, etc. and `25,000/- by way of cost.  What we find that if the value of the property is `3,19,750/-, then for non delivery of the said property, how compensation can be claimed of `98 lakhs. Though we have noticed that there is a valuation report given by the M/s.Yardi Prabhu Consultants & Valuers Pvt. Ltd., which is dated 13/01/2011 wherein flat has been shown to `98 lakhs.  What we find that the rate adopted for flat is `14,000/- per sq.ft. for 700 sq.ft. flat, which is located in village Powai. For this purpose, we also take cognizance of the fact that the rate as per Government’s Ready Recknor per sq.ft. is shown as `7,350/-.  Thus, valued it comes to roughly round about `50 lakhs. However, actual transaction is not of that value.  At the most at the time of registration, Government may charge stamp duty and registration fees on that value.  But the fact remains that the transaction is of `3,19,750/- only and the price escalation cannot be claimed to such an extent by the flat purchaser.  Apart from that this is a transaction of 1990 and much water has flown thereafter whether as on today construction is there or not, is not known. Under these circumstances, the point of limitation is equally involved in the present matter as observed by the earlier bench in the earlier order when the matter for the first time appeared before this Commission and since all these queries and problems are to be faced, the advocates are remaining absent and not allowing complaint to proceed on merits.  Cost even though directed to be paid by order dated 26/07/2011 is not paid.  All this shows that complainant and her advocates are not interested in prosecuting the matter diligently and ulterior purpose of filing this complaint appears to be different than getting reliefs as claimed in the complaint.  There is no other alternative but to dismiss the complaint, under these circumstances.  It is accordingly dismissed.  Dictated in the open court.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.  

 Pronounced on 26th September, 2011.