IA for condonation of delay

1.      As agreed by the learned counsel for the respondent the delay of five days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FIRST APPEAL NO.323 OF 2014

2.      This appeal is directed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 19-03-2014 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant was allowed and certain directions were given to the respondent/opposite party. The admitted facts are that the complainant/appellant had booked one duplex flat with the respondent. Later, since the project in which the initial booking was made was abandoned, an option was given to the complainant to shift the said booking to another project of the respondent. The said offer was accepted by the complainant and three flats were allotted to him, all measuring 623 sq. ft. of carpet area two bearing Nos.502B, 502A and the third bearing No.302B on the third floor of the building. The grievance of the complainant/appellant before the State Commission was that though the flats were actually constructed by the opposite party, possession had not been handed over to him in terms of the agreement with him.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the opposite party on the ground that though they were ready to handover the possession of the flats in question they were unable to do so because of a case pending before the Civil Court. The opposite party/respondent expressed willingness to pay the market value of the flats to the complainant. The said market value was to be worked out as per the stamp duty ready reckoner which was in force at that time.

3.      The State Commission inter alia observed that the opposite party had shown willingness to pay the market value to be calculated as per the stamp duty ready reckoner and advocate for the complainant had inclined to accept the same. It was also noted that the parties had filed a copy of the ready reckoner. The State Commission in view of the above directed the opposite parties to handover possession of the flats in question to the complainant within 60 days from the date of the order or in the alternative pay amount of Rs.72,92,460/- which was calculated as per the stamp duty ready reckoner for a total carpet area of 173.63 sq.mtr..

4.      Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission the complainant is before us by way of this appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant/appellant is that though he had represented the complainant before the State Commission he never expressed willingness to accept the market value to be calculated as per the stamp duty ready reckoner, in lieu of the flats which the opposite party had agreed to sell to the complainant. Admittedly, no application was submitted by the complainant/appellant before the State Commission through his counsel stating therein that the counsel had not agreed to accept the market value to be calculated as per the stamp duty ready reckoner in lieu of the flats in question. The learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that though the copy of the order of the State Commission was received by them on 22-04-2014, he chose to prefer this appeal instead of approaching the State Commission by way of an application pointing out to the State Commission that he had never agreed to accept the market value to be calculated as per the stamp duty ready reckoner in lieu of the flats. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent/opposite party is willing to comply with the order of the State Commission by paying a sum of Rs.72,92,460/- to the complainant along with interest calculated on that amount in terms of the order of the State Commission. However, the said offer is not acceptable to the learned counsel for the complainant. In these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal filed by the complainant with liberty to him to approach the State Commission by way of an application seeking an appropriate correction in the order of the State Commission dated 19-03-2014 on the ground that it was incorrectly recorded in the order of the State Commission that he had agreed to accept the market value to be calculated as per the stamp duty ready reckoner in lieu of the flats Nos.502B, 502A and flat No.302B in the building known as Maruti Park. The application shall be considered by the State Commission on its merit after giving an opportunity to the opposite party/respondent to file reply to the same and shall be decided within three months of the parties appearing before it. Any party aggrieved from the order which the State Commission passes on such an application will be entitled to avail such remedy as may be available to him in law.