(Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member) (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 03/02/2004 passed by District Consumer Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.263/99. Not satisfied with the inadequate reliefs granted, the original complainant has filed this appeal. (2) The facts leading to this appeal can be summerised as under:- The complainant/appellant had booked flat No.3 in the building to be constructed by M/s.Patki Constructions of which opponent No.1-A, 1-B and 1-C are partners. Accordingly the complainant executed agreement to sale on 19/09/1996. It is contended by the complainant/appellant that the consideration of the flat was 2,00,000/- and the possession was to be handed over before 31/12/1996. The complainant/appellant further contended that he has paid the consideration from 21/04/1996 to 04/03/1997. The complainant/appellant stated that the possession was given on 04/09/1997 without the amenities promised in the agreement. The complainant/appellant stated that she had to incur an expenditure of `26,000/- for providing amenities which were promised in the agreement. Finally, the complainant/appellant requested the opponent/respondents to execute the sale deed. However, the opponents/respondents had not executed the sale deed. Hence, the complainant/appellant filed a consumer complaint praying to direct the opponents to execute a sale deed of flat No.3 as per the agreement to sale dated 19/09/1996 to pay an amount of `26,000/- spent by complainant on providing the necessary amenities to pay `2,50,000/- if the opponents failed to do the work specified in para 4 of the complaint to refund the excess amount of `50,000/- paid by the complainant. The complainant further prayed for compensation of `50,000/- along with an interest of 24% p.a. on the amount prayed by the complainant and a cost of `1,000/-. (3) The opponents 1 and 1-A, 1-B, 1-C filed their written version resisting the complaint. The District Forum after hearing both the parties partially allowed the complaint and directed the opponents No.1, 1-A, 1-B, 1-C to execute a sale deed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement vide order dated 03/02/2004. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed. (4) This appeal was pending unattended since 2004. It was placed before us on 26/07/2011. On that day, we directed to office to issue notice to both parties. Accordingly notices are served to both the parties. However, both the parties remained absent. Since the matter being old, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. (5) Admittedly, the present appellant/original complainant had booked a flat and paid consideration amount of `2,00,000/- from 21/04/1996 to 04/03/1997. The opponents/respondents have also admitted that they have received the consideration amount of 2 lacs. The complainant/appellant says that apart from consideration amount, he has paid `50,000/-. The opponents/appellants deny the payment `50,000/-. The complainant/appellant had not adduced the evidence to prove that he has paid `50,000/-. The District Forum had appointed commissioner to examine the deficiencies in the flat. However, the commissioner had given the report that the appellant/complainant had done addition and alterations in the flat. Hence, the court commissioner could not find out the deficiencies in his report. Similarly, the complainant/appellant could not prove his prayer of directing the opponents to pay `2,50,000/- for the amenities. Taking into consideration the pleadings of both the parties and evidence adduced, the District Forum had directed the opponents to execute the sale deed. (6) We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum. We hold accordingly and pass the following order. ORDER (1) Appeal stands dismissed. (2) The order of District Forum dated 03/02/2004 is hereby confirmed. (3) Inform the parties accordingly. Pronounced on 15th September, 2011. | 
