Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Memebr:

(1)          This consumer complaint is filed by flat purchaser against the builder developer alleging deficiency in service for not refunding excess amount of Rs.4,11,500/- collected from him along with compensation for mental torture and also claiming the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which according to him was spent by him for getting completed unfinished work.

(2)          This complaint was filed by late Shri Ramchandra Omkar Sonawane, since dead now represented by his legal heir  and wife – Smt.Vaishali Ramchandra Sonawane.  Deceased Ramchandra Omkar Sonawane had purchased flat and accordingly taken and received its possession on 19.01.2001 on payment of entire consideration.  It is his grievance that after the possession was delivered, the developer failed to provide him the facilities as per the agreement.  He made reference to construction of latrine and bathroom doors, fixed window sliding light fittings, meter box, Pipe Fitting and kitchen work.  According to him those unfinished work got completed by him at his own cost of Rs.1,50,000/-.  He made demand of that amount in this consumer complaint.  He further submits that agreed price of the flat was Rs.6,05,000/-, but, Rs.4,11,500/- in addition/in excess were received from him by the developer and he claimed back that amount also in this consumer complaint.

(3)          Opposite Parties filed their respective written versions and resisted the claim.  They deny that any excess amount was paid and received by the builder developer as alleged.  Alleged deficiency in service on account of incomplete work of giving possession is also denied.  With this they asked for dismissal of consumer complaint.

(4)          We have carefully gone through the record and proceeding.  Except bear word, Complainant failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim about alleged excess payment of the consideration.  He produced on record certain xerox copies of the receipts but failed to tender them in evidence.  Furthermore, if any excess amount was paid by him, either wrongly or otherwise, then to claim back the same is not the one which falls under the ambit of consumer dispute.  There is no service deficiency in relation to such alleged dispute within the meaning of Section 2(a)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(5)          In the background of the facts and circumstances of the case alleging certain shortcomings in the flat at the time of delivery of the possession and it is alleged by the Complainant that those unfinished items were got completed by him at his cost and the expenditure incurred on them is demanded in this consumer complaint and, certainly, this also cannot be an area or ambit of a consumer complaint wherein relief as per provisions of Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  to recover the same could be granted.  Such expenditure made could be recovered as per Provisions of Indian Contract Act but not as a consumer dispute. 

(6)          It is further to be noted that at the time of handing over the possession to the flat purchasers an adhoc committee of the flat purchasers inspected the work completed by the developer and builder and satisfied itself that the work was completed satisfactorily.  Therefore, now no deficiency in service in leaving unfinished or leaving incomplete work could be alleged.  They have also acknowledged the subject letter dated 1506.2001 (Exhibit-1).  In this background also contention of the Complainant that certain unfinished work was left by the developer and builder with reference to the Agreement cannot be accepted.

(7)          For the reasons stated above, we find no substance in the consumer complaint and holding accordingly we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

     (i)       Consumer complaint stands dismissed.

    (ii)       No order as to costs.