Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member

Heard Mrs.Radha Damale-Advocate for the appellant and respondent in person.

This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 29/11/2008 passed by Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in consumer complaint no.53/2008, Mr.Pandurang Laxman Ghadge v/s. M/s.Shreyas Builders & Developers. Undisputed facts are that complainant had booked a flat bearing no.101 on the first floor in a building constructed by the appellant/O.P.- M/s.Shreyas Builders & Developers, M.N.Joshi marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 and accordingly paid Rs.25,000/- on 21/03/2005. However, the appellant did not execute an agreement.  He had even paid Rs.60,000/- as demanded by the appellant/O.P. (herein after referred as ‘builder’).  However, even then agreement was not executed.  In absence of agreement, he could not apply for loan to GIC.  Later on builder showed his disinclination to go with the agreement and, therefore, consumer complaint is filed. 

Builder resisted the claim alleging that it was on showing the willingness to purchase the flat, he accepted Rs.25,000/- as token amount and, further, denied to have received in cash Rs.60,000/- towards the part consideration from the complainant.  Further, alleging that there is no deficiency in service on his part, asked to  dismiss the consumer complaint.

Forum below did not grant relief of possession of the flat but, however, granted alternate relief directing to refund amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 21/3/2005 till date of payment and also awarded further compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and, similarly, directed the builder to pay cost of Rs.5000/-.  Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by original O.P./Builder.

Heard both the parties.  In the instant case considering the receipt of first payment of Rs.25,000/- dated 21/3/2005, it clearly refers to booking of the flat and the agreement to purchase the flat.  Therefore, forum below rightly considered it and reached to a conclusion that there is an agreement to purchase flat from the builder by the complainant.  It is further revealed from the record that version of the complainant about payment of Rs.60,000/- in cash after withdrawing from Municipal Co-operative Bank Ltd. finds corroboration from the passbook entries, Exhibit B. The builder wrongly interpreted provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act, 1963, particularly, section 4 of the said Act and declined to execute agreement. 

It is further revealed from the record that the builder has perhaps  sold the flat and that is one of the reasons when at the time of passing impugned order when the complainant was asked about his choice to claim relief of possession, he opted for alternate relief claimed i.e. refund of money.  This is reflected from para 13 of the impugned order.

Forum below in its own discretion instead of granting relief for possession granted alternate relief of refund of amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a.  Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant took exception to the rate of interest stating that it is on higher side and that respondent did not accept the cheque of Rs.25,000/- when he intended to refund the said amount by cheque to him likewise refund made to other intended purchasers. When the respondent/complainant at the relevant time did not cancel the booking, there arise no question to accept the said cheque.  This amount is earlier not tendered which could have been done by sending amount either by money order or pay order or otherwise.  Looking to the escalation of prices of the flats, grant of interest @ 18% p.a. cannot be faulted with. Similarly, award of compensation Rs.1 lakh against the price of Rs.5,90,000/- of the flat as mentioned in the written version of the appellant/O.P. on the similar grounds, cannot be stated as excessive. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is tried to be submitted on behalf of the appellant that in complaint filed by other flat purchasers amount of compensation was awarded at Rs.10,000/- and here in the instant case it appears to be a typographical mistake adding one zero.  We do not subscribe to such submission.  Thus, finding appeal devoid of any substance, we pass following order:-

                                                ORDER

Appeal stands dismissed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.