Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, he State Commission in consumer complaint No. 111 of 2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that it is not entertainable by consumer fora. The order is rather short and reads as under :- erused the record. It is alleged by the complainant that she was booked residential flat No. 501, admeasuring 895 sq.ft in area situated on the 5th floor of wing of proposed Bhoomi Breeze Building. She agreed to pay the price @ Rs 2501/- per sq.ft which comes around Rs.24,46,995/- inclusive of stamp duty, legal charges, society formation charges, 12 months maintenance charges, corpus fund, infrastructure charges, grill charges etc., She paid Rs.51,000/- as booking amount on 14.06.2005 by cheque. However, the project never comes up. There was exchange of correspondence/ notices. Therefore, she filed this -3- consumer complaint to claim relief of possession after receiving the balance consideration and alternatively claim Rs.23 lakh as compensation. In addition to it she also claimed Rs.50,000/- as cost of the proceeding. Admittedly, there is no written agreement had taken place. Since, the project was yet to start, the complainant was only a prospective buyer and same is made clear in its reply by the opposite party. Said reply dated 05.04.2008 (Exhibit is also on record. In the given circumstances the dispute before us cannot be branded as a consumer dispute. Of course, complainant has her own remedy in Civil Court of even before Criminal Court, if she felt cheated. Under the circumstances we hold accordingly and pass the following order: Complaint stands rejected. This appeal has been filed after delay of 53 days and application for condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons stated in the application and subject to the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. We have heard Mr. Amish Tandon, learned counsel representing the appellant and have perused the material on record. He would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that it is not in consonance with the legal position settled by the Apex Court and this Commission in catena of judgments -4- and orders. That apart, he submits that action of the respondent/opposite party in receiving the payment was in violation of the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act. We have considered this submission and having regard to the entirety of the fact and circumstances that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.51,000/- to the respondent/builder as on 16.6.2005 vide cheque No. 681503 dated 14.6.2005 for the purchase of apartment to be built by the builder, we have no manner of doubt that the complaint filed by the complainant for the kind of reliefs sought by her, was maintainable before the consumer fora. The State Commission erred in taking the view which it has taken that in absence of any written agreement, the complainant was not competent to invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. In the result, the order is legally unsustainable and is hereby set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the Board of the State Commission for entertaining and deciding the same afresh in accordance with law. The complainant is directed to appear -5- before the State Commission on 14.12.2010 for receiving further directions in the matter. Cost to be deposited in this Commission within a period of two weeks. The first appeal is allowed in part in above terms.