APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Rahul G. Joshi, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON : 9th DECEMBER 2013

OR D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.07.2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 76 / 2013, agan versus M/s. Tapadiya Construction Ltd. & Anr. vide which while dismissing appeal, the order dated 08.12.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Aurangabad, partially allowing the consumer complaint no. 85/2011, was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/OPs no. 1 & 2 are builders and developers and have launched a Scheme at Deogiri Valley of village Mitmita, Aurangabad for construction of houses. The petitioner/complainant booked a row-house with the OPs and vide agreement dated 08.10.2007 agreed to purchase 3 BHK row-house bearing number A65 in the scheme for consideration of Rs.4,95,000/-. He deposited booking charge of `5,000/- and as per his version, he made a total deposit of `75,000/- before the agreement, although the agreement says that he has deposited only `30,000/-. As per the agreement, the remaining amount was to be paid within one month from the date of agreement and the OPs/Builders had agreed to hand-over possession of the house within five months from the agreement. It was also stated that the petitioner shall pay an interest @3% per month for delayed payment. It has been stated in the complainant that he had shifted to Osmanabad and also remained seriously ill for four months. The respondents cancelled the said agreement. The petitioner filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that the booking amount of `5,000/- paid by him and his deposit of `75,000/- should be paid to him along with interest @18% p.a. and also a sum of `50,000/- should be given to him as compensation for mental harassment and loss. The District Forum vide their order dated 8.12.2011, directed that respondent no. 2 should make payment of `30,000/- to the complainant. An appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 23.07.2013. It is against this order that the present petition has been made before us. 3. At the time of admission hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that although the petitioner had paid a sum of `75,000/- to the opponents, but in the agreement, they had recorded payment of only `30,000/-. He further stated that the amount of `75,000/- should be returned to him alongwith interest @18% p.a. The petitioner was also ready to pay the balance amount of `4.20 lakh and get the possession of the house in question. The cancellation of the allotment of the said house in favour of the petitioner amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. 4. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. A perusal of the agreement entered between the parties on 08.10.2007 for row house no. A-65, and duly signed by the Petitioner/Complainant and respondent/OP makes it explicitly clear that the petitioner paid a sum of `30,000/- to the OP Company as part payment of the purchase price of the said house. It has also been stated that if he fails to pay the remaining amount on stipulated time, he shall have to pay interest on the balance amount @3% per month for delayed payment and maximum delay of two months will be condoned and thereafter, the agreement will automatically stand cancelled, without any further notice for the same. It has also been laid down that the builder will refund only 70% of the amount deposited by the purchaser. The petitioner/complainant has admitted in his complaint that because of his shifting of place and illness, he was not able to make the balance payment in time. The petitioner has not been able to prove anywhere that he had given a sum of `75,000/- to the opponents. Therefore, the opponents have every right to cancel the allotment for violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement and hence, it cannot be stated that they have indulged in any deficiency in service qua the petitioner. The District Forum after carrying out detailed analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, ordered to refund `30,000/- to the petitioner as per the amount stated in the agreement. This order has been upheld by the State Commission in Appeal. We do not find any legal infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum. These orders are, therefore, affirmed and the present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. Sd/- (K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER