Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member

These two appeals are disposed of by this common order since they arise out of one and the same order dated 01/4/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.233/2007, Ashfaque Kasim Nadkar (appellant-original complainant, appellant in A/766/2010 and respondent in A/599/2010, herein after referred as ‘complainant’) v/s. R.K.Developers and others (original opponents, appellant in A/599/2010 and respondent in A/766/2010, herein after referred as ‘opponents’).

It is a case of the complainant that they agreed to purchase flat no.606 having an area of 726 sq.ft. for a total consideration of `14 lakhs  from opponents as per agreement dated 14/07/2005.  He had paid part consideration of `12 lakhs and agreed to pay remaining `2 lakhs at the time of taking possession of the flat.  However, it is alleged that the possession is not delivered as agreed and, therefore, alleging deficiency in service on that count, the consumer complaint is filed.  Upholding the contention of the complainant, the forum partly allowed the complaint and directed to hand over possession of the flat to the complainant on receiving balance consideration of `2 lakhs from him and also awarded `3000/- as cost.  Prayer as to grant of compensation of `70,000/- and damages of `5 lakhs stood rejected.  Feeling aggrieved thereby opponent preferred A/599/10 and complainant preferred appeal no.766/2010.

Heard both the parties.  Perused the record. Opponents tried to challenge the description of opponent no.1 –M/s.R. K. Developers stating that it is a proprietary concern of other opponents and not a partnership firm. However, in appeal memo of A/599/10 opponent no.1 –M/s.R.K.Developers is itself  described as partnership firm and also endorsed the same in memorandum of registered address (Exhibit-3).

Furthermore, this point is also not again raised at the time of argument on behalf of opponent and, thereby, we presume that the contention in respect of description of original opponent no.1 is no more alive.

Opponents claimed friendly relation with the complainant.  It is further alleged by opponents that complainant showed his willingness and readiness to help them in every matter and also arranged for a friendly loan of `6 lakhs for them when they were facing financial crisis.  Taking advantage of illiteracy and ignorance of the opponents and to exploit the situation, the complainant asked to provide additional amenities in the flat agreed to be purchased by the complainant.  They had incurred an expenditure of `7,97,000/- to provide such additional facilities and amenities.  Complainant had not paid the same.  Thus, in respect of the transaction of purchase of the flat in question, balance consideration of `2 lakhs and, further, amount of `7,97,000/- for providing additional facilities and amenities are due from the complainant.  Complainant did not pay the same and filed this consumer dispute as well as one criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri.  With this they asked to dismiss the consumer complaint.

In view of the fact that opponent did not dispute the agreement in question, which is witnessed by agreement on record and, further, since opponent did not dispute the receipt of part consideration of `12 lakhs and considering the nature of their opposition per written version, we find opponents miserably failed to substantiate their case, (since no evidence is adduced for making payment towards the expenditure on account of providing additional facilities and amenities).  He filed one affidavit of Shah Alam Nisar Ahmed dated 25/7/2007 but it relates to a different transaction whereby it is alleged that `6,00,000/- taken as a loan were refunded.  We are not much concerned with it.  Therefore, we find no fault with the impugned order whereby the forum directed the opponents to hand over possession of the flat to the complainant on receiving the balance consideration of `2 lakhs.  Thus, we find appeal preferred by the opponents is devoid of any substance. 

Coming to the grievance of the complainant while filing appeal no.766/2010 whereby he complained that compensation as claimed by him was not awarded, we find since the complainant failed to substantiate his claim on that count by tendering appropriate evidence u/sec.13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; refusal to grant such relief by the forum cannot be faulted with. Thus, the appeal even filed by the complainant is devoid of any substance.

For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass following order;-

                                                ORDER

Both the appeals bearing nos.599/10 & 766/10 stand dismissed.

Both the parties to bear their own costs.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.