PER HON’BLE PRESIDENT MRS. S. S. MHATRE

Complaint No:- 29/2013                          

1.         The Complainant is residing at the address mentioned as above.  The Complainant states that the Opposite Party is a partnership firm and carrying on the business of construction of the building and selling the flats/shops etc., constructed by them on various plots to the prospective purchasers. The Complainant states that I)Mr.Shrishkumar Rangrao Chavan II)Smt. Jyoti Shrishkumar Chavan III)Mr.Deepak Tambe and IV) Mr. Santosh Tambe are the partners of the said Suraj Enterprises and the Opposite Party is conducting the said business through it’s partners from Sr. No. I to IV  mentioned in the  cause title.

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:- The Office of the Opposite Party is at Vashi –Navi Mumbai and cause of action is partly arose in the office of opposite party, where the complainant has booked his flat i.e, at Navi Mumbai.  Hence, the present complaint filed is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction:- The Complainant has asked for the possession of flat or refund of the amount paid by him to the opposite party for purchasing the aforesaid flat with interest and value of the subject matter i.e, the flat booked by the complainant is below 20,00,000/-.  Hence, the complaint is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum.
3. Cause of action is continuous:- The Complainant has paid huge consideration amount to the Opposite Party out of total consideration amount, as shown in the following table.  Despite of that the Opposite Party failed to give possession of the said flat to the complainant, by complying necessary legal formalities for the sale.  Hence, the cause of action is continuous.

2.                     Details of the flat booked/purchased by the complainant (as given in the complaint) are as follows-

3.                     Brief facts of the complaint as given by the complainant are as follows-

1. The Complainant states that the complainant has booked Flat No. 204, 2^nd Floor at Suraj Complex, Gut no.7, Sukhapur, Panvel (Carpet Area 540 Sq.ft.), for the total consideration amount of Rs.12,96,000/- and has paid  Rs.4,00,000/- out of it to the opposite party.  Despite of receipt of substantial amount from the complainant, the opposite party has not executed Agreement for Sale for the said flat, but has only issued a receipt bearing no.1906, dt.01/12/2010 for Rs.2,00,000/- and receipt no.1946, dt.01/12/2010 for Rs.2,00,000/-, total amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant, pertaining to the sale transaction of the aforesaid flat.
2. The Complainant states that the Opposite party had promised to give possession of the said flat to the complainant as early as possible, but on 16/12/2011, the opposite party called the complainant and requested that the said flat cannot be handed over to the complainant and the opposite party would like to return the amount accepted by the opposite party to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant visited several times to the office of the opposite party, but no response was given by the opposite party to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party and has prayed for :–
   1. possession of the said Flat No. 204, 2^nd Floor at Suraj Complex, Gut no. 7, Sukhapur, Panvel (Carpet Area 540 Sq.ft.,)  (OR)
   2. Refund of the amount paid to the opposite party with interest.
   3. Rs.2,00,000/- for rent and Rs.2,00,000/- interest on borrowed money, as also Rs.11,65,000/ for the mental torture and Rs.20,000/- for litigation charges from the opposite party.

4.                     The Opposite Parties chosen to remain absent for the hearing despite of acceptance of notice by Mr.Shirishkumar R. Chavan for all the parties of opposite party i.e, Suraj enterprises, for which the complainant’s adv. has filed a service affidavit for the service of notice on the opposite parties.  Hence, on 07/04/2015, an ex-parte order is passed against all the opposite parties.

5.                     The Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence and written argument and the case is closed for the final order.  On perusal of the documents following points are considered by the forum:-

1. Whether the complainant has produced a partnership deed to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm?    No.
2. Whether complainant has established with the documentary proof deficiency of service rendered by the Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor?                Yes.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of money with interest from the opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises?                 Yes.
4. Whether complainant is entitled for the amount of rent of Rs.2,00,000/- and interest on borrowed money claimed by him in the complaint from the Suraj enterprises?                         No.
5. Whether the complainant is entitled for the litigation charges from the opposite party, i.e, Suraj Enterprises?                         Yes.

Reasons- - The Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises through it’s partners stating therein that it is a partnership firm but the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence like Partnership Deed etc., to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm and the persons mentioned in the cause title of the complaint are it’s partners.  On the contrary, on the some pages of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that the Suraj Enterprises is a proprietary concern and Mr.Shirish R. Chavan is a proprietor of the same.  On the receipt bearing no.1906, dt.01/12/2010 for Rs.2,00,000/- and receipt no.1946, dt.01/12/2010 for Rs.2,00,000/-, total amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- for the purchase of Flat No. 204, 2^nd Floor at Suraj Complex, Gut no. 7, Sukhapur, Panvel (Carpet Area 540 Sq.ft.,) issued by the opposite party i.e, by the Suraj Enterprises to the complainant for the part of consideration amount received from the complainant, Mr.Shirish Chavan has signed for Suraj Enterprises as a proprietor and therefore, has admitted receipt of Rs.4,00,000/- paid by the complainant for purchasing the said flat.  Hence, the complainant is a consumer of Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor Mr.Shirish R. Chavan, but there is no privity of contract between other three persons who are shown as partners of the Suraj enterprises and the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm.  Hence, no order is required to be passed against opposite parties namely (II)Smt.Jyoti Shrishkumar Chavan, (III) Mr.Deepak Tambe and (IV) Mr. Santosh Tambe.

            Despite of receipts of above mentioned amount, the Opposite Party  i.e, Suraj Enterprises failed to give possession of the said flat, to the Complainant  by completing necessary legal formalities, but as stated by the complainant in his complaint, the opposite party has called him on 16/12/2011, to take back the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party, and expressed his inability to give the possession of the flat and the complainant was also ready to accept the refund of the amount with interest, as stated by the complainant in his pleadings, para no. 4 of the complaint. 

                        The Complainant has also filed a copy of FIR filed against the opposite party, about the fraud committed and cheating done by the proprietor of the opposite party towards the plenty of flat purchasers like complainant, which shows that, by keeping the complainant and other proposed flat purchasers in dark, opposite parties used to sell  flats/ rooms which were already, sold to other 4 to 5 persons earlier, with a false promises of giving possession of the said flats by completing necessary legal formalities.

                        The Complainant has suffered a lot due to non delivery of the possession of the flat booked by him, for last 5 years, despite of payment of Rs.4,00,000/- to the opposite party.  Hence, the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- for the compensation for the mental torture and Rs.20,000/- for the litigation charges to the complainant apart from the possession of the said flat or refund of Rs.4,00,000/- accepted from the complainant for the said flat alongwith the interest @ 12% from 01/12/2010.

                        Hence in the interest of justice, we passed the following order -                                 

Final Order

1. CC/29/2013 is partly allowed.
2. The Opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises as a proprietary concerned through it’s proprietor Mr.Shirish R.Chavan is directed to execute the Agreement for Sale within the period of 2 months from the outward date of this order with the complainant pertaining to the sale of the said flat,  by accepting the rest of the consideration amount from him within period of 2 months from the outward date of this order and immediately on receipt of the rest of the consideration  amount opposite party is directed to give  the possession of the Flat No.204, 2^nd Floor of Suraj Complex, Gut No.7, Sukhapur, Panvel (Carpet Area 540 Sq.ft.)  to the complainant.

                                                            (or)

Opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises as a proprietary concerned through it’s proprietor Mr.Shirish R.Chavan is directed to refund Rs.4,00,000/- with 12% interest on it from 01/12/2010, till actual realization of the amount to the complainant.

3. Prayer for refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid on account of  the rent  by the complainant is rejected due to lack of documentary evidence such as leave and license agreement /rent receipts etc., for the actual rent paid by the complainant.  Similarly, the prayer for the refund of interest paid on bank loan is rejected in absence of documentary evidence.
4. The Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for the compensation for the mental torture and Rs.20,000/- for the litigation charges to the complainant. Compliance of the said order is to be done by the opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor, Mr.Shirish R.Chavan within a period of 2 months from the outward date of this order.
5. No order is passed against other opposite parties shown as partners of Suraj Enterprises, i.e, II) Smt. Jyoti Shrishkumar Chavan III) Mr. Deepak Tambe IV)Mr.Santosh Tambe, as there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant.
6.  Send certified copies to all the concerned parties free of cost.

Complaint No:- 33/2013

1.         Complainant is residing at the address mentioned as above. Complainants state that Opposite Party is a partnership firm and carrying on the business of construction of the building and selling the flats/shops etc. constructed by them on various plots to the prospective purchasers. Complainant state that, I) Mr. Shrishkumar Rangrao Chavan II)Smt. Joyti Shrishkumar Chavan III) Mr. Deepak Tambe and IV) Mr. Santosh Tambe) are the partners of the said Suraj enterprises, and Opposite Party is conducting  the said business through it’s partners   from Sr. No  I to IV  mentioned in the  cause title. 

1. Territorial Jurisdiction- Office of the Opposite Party is at Vashi –Navi Mumbai and cause of action is partly arose in the office of opposite party where the complainant has booked his flat i.e at Navi Mumbai, hence complaints filed within our territorial Jurisdiction. 

2. Pecuniary Jurisdictions : The Complainant has asked  for the possession of flat or refund of amount  paid by him to the opposite party for purchasing the aforesaid  flat with interest and value of the subject matter i.e the flat booked by the complainant is below 19,50,000/- hence, the complaint is within the pecuniary jurisdiction.

3. Cause of action is continuous- Complainant  has paid huge consideration amount  to the Opposite Party  out of total consideration amount, as shown in the following table, despite of that the Opposite Party failed to give possession of the said flat to the complainant, by complying necessary legal formalities  for the sale  hence  cause of action is continuous.

2.                     Details of the flat booked/purchased by the complainant (as given in the complaint) are as follows-

3.                     Brief facts of the complaint as given by the complainant are as follows-

1) Complainant states that she has booked Suraj Heritage, Flat No. 404, 4^th Floor, Plot no. 59, Sector 20, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai (Carpet Area 529.92 Sq.ft.,) the total consideration amount of Rs.13,00,000/- and paid  Rs.       /- out of it to the opposite party. Despite of receipt of substantial amount from the complainant opposite party has not executed Agreement for sale for the said flat, but has only issued a receipt                - from the complainant, pertaining to the sale transaction of the aforesaid flat.

2) Complainant state that Opposite party had promised to give possession of the said flat to the complainant as early as possible but, on 16/12/2011, opposite party called the complainant and requested that the said flat cannot be handed over to the complainant, hence  opposite party would like to return the amount accepted by the opposite party to the complainant, therefore complainant visited several times to the office of the opposite party , but no response was given by the opposite party to the complainant , hence complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party and has prayed for –

1) possession of the said Suraj Heritage, Flat No. 404, 4^th Floor, Plot no. 59, Sector 20, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai (Carpet Area 529.92 Sq.ft.,)  (OR)

2) Refund of the amount paid to the opposite party with interest.

3) Rs.2,00.000/- for rent and Rs. 2,00,000/-interest on borrowed money, 4,50,000/ for the mental torture and Rs. 20,000/- for litigation charges from the opposite party.

3) Opposite Parties chose to remain absent for the hearing despite of acceptance of notice by Mr. Shirishkumar R. Chavan for all the parties of opposite party i.e. suraj enterprises, for which complainant adv has filed a service affidavit for the service of notice on the opposite party parties, hence on 18/12/14, an exparte order is passed against all the opposite parties.

4.         Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence and written argument and the case is closed for the final order. On perusal of the documents following points are considered by the forum-

1) Whether the complainant has produced a partnership deed to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm? No.

2) Whether complainant has established with the documentary proof deficiency of service rendered by the Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor? Yes.

3) Whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of money with interest from the opposite party Suraj Enterprises? Yes.

4) Whether complainant is entitled for the amount of rent of Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest on borrowed money claimed by him in the complaint from the Suraj enterprises? No.

5) Whether the complainant is entitled for the litigation charges from the opposite party, i.e. Suraj Enterprises? Yes.

Reasons-1 - Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party Suraj Enterprises through it’s partners stating that it is a partnership firm but complainant has not produced any documentary evidence like Partnership Deed etc. to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm and persons mentioned in the cause title of the complaint are it’s partners, on the contrary on the some pages of the complaint, complainant has mentioned the Suraj Enterprises is a proprietary concern and Mr. Shirish R. Chavan is a proprietor of the same. On the receipt receipt  

                                                     for the purchase of Suraj Heritage, Flat No. 404, 4^th Floor, Plot no. 59, Sector 20, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai (Carpet Area 529.92 Sq.ft.,) given by the opposite party i.e by the Suraj Enterprises to the complainant for the part of consideration amount received from the complainant Mr. Shirish Chavan has signed for Suraj Enterprises as a proprietor, and has admitted receipt of Rs.2,50,000/- paid by the complainant for purchasing the said flat, hence complainant is a consumer of Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor Mr. Shirish R. Chavan, but  there is no privity of contract between other three persons who are shown as partners of the Suraj enterprises, and complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the suraj enterprises is a partnership firm, hence no order is passed against  opposite party namely (II)Smt. Joyti Shrishkumar Chavan (III) Mr. Deepak Tambe (IV)Mr. Santosh Tambe.

            Despite of receipts of above mentioned amount the Opposite Party  Suraj Enterprises failed to give possession of the said flat, to the Complainant  by completing necessary legal formalities, but as stated by the complainant in his complaint opposite party has called him on 16/12/2011, to take back the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party, and expressed his inability to give the possession of the flat and the complainant was also ready to accept the refund of the amount with interest, as stated by the complainant in his pleadings, para no. 4 of the complaint.

            Complainant has filed a copy of FIR filed against the opposite party, about the fraud committed and cheating done by the proprietor of the opposite party towards the plenty of flat purchasers like complainant, which shows that, by keeping the complainant and other proposed flat purchasers in dark, opposite parties used to sell  flats/ rooms which were already, sold to other 4 to 5 persons earlier, with a false promises of giving possession of the said flats by completing necessary legal formalities.

                        Complainant has suffered a lot due to non delivery of the possession of the flat booked by him, for last 5 years, despite of payment of Rs.2,50,000/- to the opposite party, hence opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for the compensation for the mental torture and Rs. 20,000/- for the litigation charges to the complainant.

Hence in the interest of justice following order is passed-    

                                      Final Order-

1)  CC/128/14 is partly allowed.

2) Opposite party Suraj Enterprises as a proprietary concerned through it’s proprietor Mr Shirish R.Chavan is directed to  execute the agreement for sale within the period of 2 months from the outward date of this order with the complainant pertaining to the sale of the said flat,  by accepting the rest of the consideration amount from him within period of 2 months from the outward date of this order and immediately on receipt of the rest of the consideration  amount opposite party is directed to give  the possession of the Suraj Heritage, Flat No. 404, 4^th Floor, Plot no. 59, Sector 20, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai (Carpet Area 529.92 Sq.ft.,)  to the complainant.

 (or)

Opposite party Suraj Enterprises as a proprietary concerned through it’s proprietor Mr Shirish R.Chavan is directed to refund Rs. 2,50,000/- with 12% interest on it from 10/10/2010, till actual realization of the amount to the complainant.

3)Prayer for refund of the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid on account of  the rent  by the complainant is rejected due to lack of documentary evidence such as leave and license agreement /rent receipts etc. for the actual rent paid by the complainant. similarly prayer for the refund of interest paid on bank loan is rejected in absence of documentary evidence.

4) Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for the compensation for the mental torture and Rs. 20,000/- for the litigation charges to the complainant.

Compliance of the said order is to be done by the opposite party Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor, Mr.shirish R.Chavan within a period of 2 months from the outward date of this order.  

5) No order is passed against other opposite parties shown as partners of Suraj Enterprises, i.e. II) Smt. Joyti Shrishkumar Chavan III) Mr. Deepak Tambe, and against IV) Mr. Santosh Tambe as there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant.

 6) Send certified copies to all the concerned parties free of cost. 

Complaint No:- 34/2013

तक्रारदाराचे वकील वर्षा वैद्य हजर.  तक्रारदारांचे वकीलांनी तक्रारदार व विरुध्‍द पक्षकार यांच्‍यात तडजोड झाल्‍याने सदरील तक्रार काढून घेत असल्‍याबाबतचा दि.07.04.2015 चा अर्ज सादर केला.  सबब खालीलप्रमाणे आदेश पारीत करण्‍यात येत आहे.

अंतिम आदेश

1) तक्रारदाराचा तक्रार क्र.CC/13/34 काढून घेण्‍याबाबतचा अर्ज मंजूर करण्‍यात येऊन सदरील तक्रार निकाली काढण्‍यात येत आहे.

2) या आदेशाच्‍या साक्षांकित प्रती सर्व पक्षकारांना विनामुल्‍य देण्‍यात याव्‍यात.

Complaint No:- 36/2013

1.                    The Complainant is residing at the address mentioned as above. Complainants state that Opposite Party is a partnership firm and carrying on the business of construction of the building and selling the flats/shops etc. constructed by them on various plots to the prospective purchasers. The Complainant states that, I)Mr.Shrishkumar Rangrao Chavan, II)Smt. Jyoti Shrishkumar Chavan, III)Mr.Deepak Tambe and IV) Mr. Santosh Tambe) are the partners of the said Suraj enterprises and Opposite Party is conducting  the said business through it’s partners   from Sr. No  I to IV  mentioned in the  cause title. 

1. Territorial Jurisdiction- The Office of the Opposite Party is at Vashi –Navi Mumbai and cause of action is partly arose in the office of opposite party where the complainant has booked his flat i.e at Navi Mumbai.  Hence, the present complaint filed is within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.
2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction : The Complainant has asked  for the possession of flat or refund of amount  paid by him to the opposite party for purchasing the aforesaid flat with interest and value of the subject matter i.e, the flat booked by the complainant is below 20,00,000/-.  Hence, the complaint is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
3. Cause of action is continuous- Complainant has paid huge consideration amount to the Opposite Party, out of total consideration amount, as shown in the following table.  Despite of that, the Opposite Party failed to give possession of the said flat to the complainant, by complying necessary legal formalities for the sale.  Hence, the cause of action is continuous.

2.                     Details of the flat booked/purchased by the complainant (as given in the complaint) are as follows-

3.                     Brief facts of the complaint as given by the complainant are as follows-

1. The Complainant states that she has booked Flat No. 403, 4^th Floor at Suraj Sara, Plot no. 68, Sector-35, Kamothe (Carpet Area 605 Sq.ft.), for the total consideration amount of Rs.15,57,875/- and he has paid  Rs.2,00,000/- out of it to the opposite party.  Despite of receipt of substantial amount from the complainant, the opposite party has not executed Agreement for Sale for the said flat, but has only issued a receipt bearing no.705, dt.05/03/2010 for Rs.2,00,000/-, total amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant, pertaining to the sale transaction of the aforesaid flat.
2. The Complainant states that Opposite party has promised to give possession of the said flat to the complainant as early as possible, but on 16/12/2011, the opposite party called the complainant and requested that the said flat cannot be handed over to the complainant.  Hence, the opposite party would like to return the amount accepted by the opposite party to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant visited several times to the office of the opposite party, but no response was given by the opposite party to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties and has prayed for –
   1. possession of the said Flat No. 403, 4^th Floor at Suraj Sara, Plot no.68, Sector-35, Kamothe (Carpet Area 605 Sq.ft.), (OR)
   2. Refund of the amount paid to the opposite party with interest.
   3. Rs.2,00,000/- for rent and Rs.2,00,000/-interest on borrowed money, Rs.13,65,000/- for the mental torture and Rs.20,000/- for litigation charges from the opposite party.

4.                     The Opposite Parties chosen to remain absent for the hearing despite of acceptance of notice by Mr. Shirishkumar R. Chavan for all the parties of opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises, for which the complainant’s Advocate has filed a service affidavit for the service of notice on the opposite parties.  Hence, on 07/04/2015, an ex-parte order is passed against all the opposite parties.

5.                     The Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence and written argument and the case is closed for the final order.  On perusal of the documents following points are considered by the forum-

1. Whether the complainant has produced a partnership deed to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm?    No.
2. Whether complainant has established with the documentary proof deficiency of service rendered by the Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor?    Yes.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of money with interest from the opposite party Suraj Enterprises?                 Yes.
4. Whether complainant is entitled for the amount of rent of Rs.2,00,000/- and interest on borrowed money claimed by him in the complaint from the Suraj Enterprises?            No.
5. Whether the complainant is entitled for the litigation charges from the opposite party, i.e. Suraj Enterprises? Yes.

Reasons—The Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises through it’s partners stating that it is a partnership firm but the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence like Partnership Deed etc., to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm and the persons mentioned in the cause title of the complaint are it’s partners.  On the contrary, on some pages of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned the Suraj Enterprises is a proprietary concern and Mr.Shirish R. Chavan is a proprietor of the same.  On the receipt bearing no.705 dt.05/03/2010 for Rs. 2,00,000/-, total amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- for the purchase of Flat No. 403, 4^th Floor at Suraj Sara, Plot no. 68, Sector-35, Kamothe (Carpet Area 605 Sq.ft.), issued by the opposite party i.e by the Suraj Enterprises to the complainant for the part of consideration amount received from the complainant, Mr. Shirish Chavan has signed for Suraj Enterprises as a proprietor and e has admitted receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the complainant for purchasing the said flat.  Hence, the complainant is a consumer of Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor Mr. Shirish R. Chavan, but there is no privity of contract between other three persons who are shown as partners of the Suraj enterprises, and complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the suraj enterprises is a partnership firm, hence no order is passed against  opposite party namely (II) Smt. Jyoti Shrishkumar Chavan, (III) Mr. Deepak Tambe and (IV) Mr. Santosh Tambe.

            Despite of receipts of above mentioned amount, the Opposite Party  i.e, Suraj Enterprises failed to give possession of the said flat to the Complainant, by completing necessary legal formalities.  But, as stated by the complainant in his complaint, the opposite party has called him on 16/12/2011 to take back the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party and expressed his inability to give the possession of the flat and the complainant was also ready to accept the refund of the amount with interest, as stated by the complainant in his pleadings, para no. 4 of the complaint.

            The Complainant has also filed a copy of FIR filed against the opposite party, about the fraud committed and cheating done by the proprietor of the opposite party towards the plenty of flat purchasers like complainant, which shows that, by keeping the complainant and other proposed flat purchasers in dark, opposite parties used to sell  flats/ rooms which were already, sold to other 4 to 5 persons earlier, with a false promises of giving possession of the said flats by completing necessary legal formalities. 

                        The Complainant has suffered a lot due to non delivery of the possession of the flat booked by him, for last 5 years, despite of payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to the opposite party.  Hence, the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- for the compensation for the mental torture and Rs.20,000/- for the litigation charges to the complainant, apart from the possession of the said flat or refund of Rs.2,00,000/- accepted from the complainant for the said flat alongwith the interest @ 12% from 05/03/2010.

Hence in the interest of justice, we passed the following order -                                 

Final Order

1. CC/36/13 is partly allowed.
2. The Opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises as a proprietary concerned through it’s proprietor Mr Shirish R.Chavan is directed to execute the Agreement for Sale within the period of 2 months from the outward date of this order with the complainant pertaining to the sale of the said flat,  by accepting the rest of the consideration amount from him within period of 2 months from the outward date of this order and immediately on receipt of the rest of the consideration  amount opposite party is directed to give the possession of the Flat No. 403, 4^th Floor at Suraj Sara, Plot no. 68, Sector 35, Kamothe (Carpet Area 605 Sq.ft.) , to the complainant.

                                    (or)

The Opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises as a proprietary concerned through it’s proprietor Mr.Shirish R.Chavan is directed to refund Rs.2,00,000/- with 12% interest on it from 05/03/2010, till actual realization of the amount to the complainant.

3. Prayer for refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid on account of  the rent  by the complainant is rejected due to lack of documentary evidence, such as leave and license agreement /rent receipts etc., for the actual rent paid by the complainant.  Similarly prayer for the refund of interest paid on bank loan is rejected in absence of documentary evidence.
4. The Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for the compensation for the mental torture and Rs.20,000/- for the litigation charges to the complainant. Compliance of the said order is to be done by the opposite party Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor, Mr.Shirish R.Chavan within a period of 2 months from the outward date of this order.
5. No order is passed against other opposite parties shown as partners of Suraj Enterprises, i.e, II) Smt. Joyti Shrishkumar Chavan, III) Mr. Deepak Tambe, and IV) Mr. Santosh Tambe, as there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant.
6.  Send certified copies to all the concerned parties free of cost. 

Complaint No:- 51/2013

1.                    The Complainant is residing at the address mentioned as above. The Complainant states that the Opposite Party is a partnership firm and carrying on the business of construction of the building and selling the flats/shops etc., constructed by them on various plots to the prospective purchasers.  The Complainant states that, I)Mr.Shrishkumar Rangrao Chavan, II)Smt. Jyoti Shrishkumar Chavan, III)Mr.Deepak Tambe and IV) Mr. Santosh Tambe, are the partners of the Opposite Party i.e, Suraj enterprises and the Opposite Party is conducting the said business through it’s partners   from Sr. No.  I to IV mentioned in the  cause title. 

1. Territorial Jurisdiction- The Office of the Opposite Party is at Vashi –Navi Mumbai and cause of action is partly arose in the office of opposite party where the complainant has booked his flat i.e, at Navi Mumbai.  Hence, the present complaint filed is within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.
2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction : The Complainant has asked  for the possession of flat or refund of amount paid by him to the opposite party for purchasing the aforesaid  flat with interest and value of the subject matter i.e, the flat booked by the complainant is below 20,00,000/-.  Hence, the complaint is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
3. Cause of action is continuous- The Complainant has paid huge consideration amount to the Opposite Party out of total consideration amount, as shown in the following table.  Despite of that the Opposite Party failed to give possession of the said flat to the complainant, by complying necessary legal formalities for the sale.  Hence, the cause of action is continuous.

2.                     Details of the flat booked/purchased by the complainant (as given in the complaint) are as follows-

3.                     Brief facts of the complaint as given by the complainant are as follows-

1. The Complainant states that Flat No. B-201, Suraj Complex, Gut No.07 Sukhapur, Tal.Panvel, Dist.Raigad (Carpet Area 370 Sq.Ft.), for the total consideration amount of Rs.6,47,500/- and he has paid  Rs.1,50,000/- out of it  to the opposite party.  Despite of receipt of substantial amount from the complainant, the opposite party has not executed Agreement for Sale for the said flat, but has only issued a receipt bearing no.1676, dt.29/11/2010 for Rs.55,000/-, receipt no.Nil, dt.09/07/2009 for Rs.50,000/- and receipt no.Nil, dtd.01/08/2009 for Rs.45,000/-, total amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant, pertaining to the sale transaction of the aforesaid flat.
2. The Complainant states that the Opposite party had promised to give possession of the said flat to the complainant as early as possible, but on 16/12/2011, the opposite party has called the complainant and requested that the said flat cannot be handed over to the complainant.  Hence, the opposite party would like to return the amount accepted by the opposite party to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant visited several times to the office of the opposite party, but no response was given by the opposite party to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party and has prayed for –

1. possession of the said flat  Flat No. B-201,  Suraj Complex, Gut No.07 Sukhapur, Tal- Panvel, Dist.Raigad   (Carpet Area 370 Sq.Ft.) (OR)
2. Refund of the amount paid to the opposite party with interest.
3. Rs.2,00,000/- for rent and Rs.2,00,000/-interest on borrowed money, Rs.14,15,000/ for Compensation & mental torture and Rs.20,000/- for litigation charges from the opposite party.

4.                     The Opposite Parties chosen to remain absent for the hearing despite of acceptance of notice by Mr. Shirishkumar R. Chavan for all the parties of opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises, for which complainant’s Advocate has filed a service affidavit for the service of notice on the opposite party parties.  Hence, on 07/04/15, an  ex-parte order is passed against all the opposite parties.

5.                     The Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence and written argument and the case is closed for the final order.  On perusal of the documents following points are considered by the forum-

1. Whether the complainant has produced a partnership deed to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm?    No.
2. Whether complainant has established with the documentary proof deficiency of service rendered by the Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor?    Yes.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of money with interest from the opposite party Suraj Enterprises?                 Yes.
4. Whether complainant is entitled for the amount of rent of Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest on borrowed money claimed by him in the complaint from the Suraj enterprises?             No.
5. Whether the complainant is entitled for the litigation charges from the opposite party, i.e. Suraj Enterprises?              Yes.

Reasons- The Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises through it’s partners stating therein that it is a partnership firm but the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence like Partnership Deed etc., to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm and the persons mentioned in the cause title of the complaint are it’s partners.  On the contrary, on some pages of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that the Suraj Enterprises is a proprietary concern and Mr.Shirish R. Chavan is a proprietor of the same.  On the receipt bearing no.1676, dt.29/11/2010 for Rs. 55,000/-, receipt no. , dt.09/07/2009 for Rs.50,000/- and receipt no.  , dtd.01/08/2009 for Rs.45,000/-, total amounting to  Rs.1,50,000/- for the purchase of flat Flat No. B-201,  Suraj Complex, Gut No.07, Sukhapur Tal.Panvel, Dist.Raigad (Carpet Area 370 Sq.Ft.), issued by iven by the opposite party i.e, by the Suraj Enterprises to the complainant, for the part of consideration amount received from the complainant, Mr.Shirish Chavan has signed for Suraj Enterprises as a proprietor and thereby has admitted receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by the complainant for purchasing the said flat.  Hence, the complainant is a consumer of Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor Mr. Shirish R. Chavan, but there is no privity of contract between other three persons who are shown as partners of the Suraj enterprises and the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm.  Hence, no order is required to be passed against opposite parties namely (II)Smt. Jyoti Shrishkumar Chavan, III) Mr.Deepak Tambe and (IV)Mr. Santosh Tambe.

            Despite of receipts of above mentioned amount the Opposite Party  i.e, Suraj Enterprises failed to give possession of the said flat to the Complainant by completing necessary legal formalities, but as stated by the complainant in his complaint the opposite party has called him on 16/12/2011, to take back the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party and expressed his inability to give the possession of the flat and the complainant was also ready to accept the refund of the amount with interest, as stated by the complainant in his pleadings, para no. 4 of the complaint. 

            The Complainant has also filed a copy of FIR filed against the opposite party, about the fraud committed and cheating done by the proprietor of the opposite party towards the plenty of flat purchasers like the present complainant, which shows that by keeping the complainant and other proposed flat purchasers in dark, opposite parties used to sell  flats/ rooms which were already, sold to other 4 to 5 persons earlier, with a false promises of giving possession of the said flats by completing necessary legal formalities.

                        The Complainant has suffered a lot due to non delivery of the possession of the flat booked by him, for last 5 years, despite of payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite party.  Hence, the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental torture and Rs.20,000/- for the litigation charges to the complainant, apart from the possession of the said flat or refund of Rs.1,50,000/- accepted from the complainant for the said flat alongwith the interest @ 12% from 29/11/2010.

 Hence in the interest of justice, we passed the following order -                                 

Final Order

1. CC/51/13 is partly allowed.
2. The Opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises as a proprietary concerned through it’s proprietor Mr Shirish R.Chavan is directed to execute the Agreement for Sale within the period of 2 months from the outward date of this order with the complainant pertaining to the sale of the said flat,  by accepting the rest of the consideration amount from him within period of 2 months from the outward date of this order and immediately on receipt of the rest of the consideration  amount opposite party is directed to give  the possession of the said Flat No.B-201,  Suraj Complex, Gut No.07, Sukhapur Tal.Panvel, Dist.Raigad    (Carpet Area 370 Sq.Ft.), to the complainant.

                                    (or)

The Opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises as a proprietary concerned through it’s proprietor Mr.Shirish R.Chavan is directed to refund Rs.1,50,000/- with 12% interest on it from 29/11/2010, till actual realization of the amount to the complainant.

3. Prayer for refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid on account of  the rent  by the complainant is rejected due to lack of documentary evidence such as leave and license agreement /rent receipts etc. for the actual rent paid by the complainant.  Similarly prayer for the refund of interest paid on bank loan is rejected in absence of documentary evidence.
4. The Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for the compensation for the mental torture and Rs.20,000/- for the litigation charges to the complainant. Compliance of the said order is to be done by the opposite party Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor, Mr.shirish R.Chavan within a period of 2 months from the outward date of this order.
5. No order is passed against other opposite parties shown as partners of Suraj Enterprises, i.e, II) Smt. Jyoti Shrishkumar Chavan, III) Mr.Deepak Tambe and (IV) Mr. Santosh Tambe, as there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant.
6. Send certified copies to all the concerned parties free of cost. 

Complaint No:- 52/2013

1.                    The Complainant is residing at the address mentioned as above.  The Complainant states that Opposite Party is a partnership firm and carrying on the business of construction of the building and selling the flats/shops etc., constructed by them on various plots to the prospective purchasers. The Complainant states that, I)Mr.Shrishkumar Rangrao Chavan II)Smt. Jyoti Shrishkumar Chavan III) Mr. Deepak Tambe and IV) Mr. Santosh Tambe) are the partners of the said Opposite Party i.e, Suraj Enterprises and the Opposite Party is conducting the said business through it’s partners  from Sr. No  I to IV mentioned in the  cause title. 

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:- The Office of the Opposite Party is at Vashi –Navi Mumbai and cause of action is partly arose in the office of opposite party where the complainant has booked his flat i.e, at Navi Mumbai.  Hence, the present complaint filed is within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.
2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction :- The Complainant has asked  for the possession of flat or refund of amount  paid by him to the opposite party for purchasing the aforesaid flat with interest and value of the subject matter i.e, the flat booked by the complainant is below 20,00,000/-.  Hence, the complaint is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
3. Cause of action is continuous:- The Complainant has paid huge consideration amount to the Opposite Party, out of the total consideration amount, as shown in the following table.  Despite of that the Opposite Party failed to give possession of the said flat to the complainant, by complying necessary legal formalities for the sale.  Hence, the cause of action is continuous.

2.                     Details of the flat booked/purchased by the complainant (as given in the complaint) are as follows-

3.                     Brief facts of the complaint as given by the complainant are as follows-

1. The Complainant states that the complainant has booked the Flat No. B-202,  Suraj Complex, Gut No.08, Shilottar-Raichur, Tal- Panvel, Dist-Raigad (Carpet Area 370 Sq.Ft.), for the total consideration amount of Rs.7,93,500/- and she has paid  Rs.2,00,000/- out of it to the opposite party. Despite of the receipt of substantial amount from the complainant, the opposite party has not executed Agreement for Sale for the said flat, but has only issued the receipts bearing no.652, dt.23/02/2010 for Rs.50,000/-, receipt no.938, dt.13/04/2010 for Rs.40,000/-, receipt no.937, dtd.13/04/2010 for Rs.10,000/-, receipt no.1815, dt.13/12/2010 for Rs.20,000/- and receipt no.181, dt.15/12/2010 for Rs.80,000/-, total amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant, pertaining to the sale transaction of the aforesaid flat.
2. The Complainant states that Opposite party had promised to give possession of the said flat to the complainant as early as possible, but on 16/12/2011, the opposite party called the complainant and requested that the said flat cannot be handed over to the complainant and hence, the opposite party would like to return the amount accepted by the opposite party to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant visited several times to the office of the opposite party, but no response was given by the opposite party to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party and has prayed for –

1. possession of the said flat  Flat No. B-202,  Suraj Complex, Gut No.08, Shilottar-Raichur, Tal- Panvel, Dist-Raigad (Carpet Area 370 Sq.Ft.) (OR)
2. Refund of the amount paid to the opposite party with interest.
3. Rs.2,00,000/- for rent and Rs.2,00,000/- interest on borrowed money, Rs.13,65,000/ for Compensation & Mental torture and Rs. 20,000/- for litigation charges from the opposite party.

4.                     The Opposite Parties chosen to remain absent for the hearing despite of acceptance of notice by Mr. Shirishkumar R. Chavan for all the opposite parties, for which the complainant’s Advocate has filed a service affidavit for the service of notice on the opposite parties.  Hence, on 07/04/15, an ex-parte order is passed against all the opposite parties.

5.                     The Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence and written argument and the case is closed for the final order.  On perusal of the documents following points are considered by the forum-

1. Whether the complainant has produced a partnership deed to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm?               No.
2. Whether complainant has established with the documentary proof deficiency in service rendered by the Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor?             Yes.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of money with interest from the opposite party Suraj Enterprises?           Yes.
4. Whether complainant is entitled for the amount of rent of Rs.2,00,000/- and interest on borrowed money claimed by him in the complaint from the Suraj enterprises?       No.
5. Whether the complainant is entitled for the litigation charges from the opposite party, i.e. Suraj Enterprises?           Yes.

Reasons- - The Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party Suraj Enterprises through it’s partners stating that it is a partnership firm but complainant has not produced any documentary evidence like Partnership Deed etc., to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm and persons mentioned in the cause title of the complaint are it’s partners.  On the contrary, on the some pages of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that the Suraj Enterprises is a proprietary concern and Mr. Shirish R. Chavan is a proprietor of the same.  On the receipt bearing no.652, dt.23/02/2010 for Rs.50,000/-, receipt no.938, dt.13/04/2010 for Rs.40,000/-, receipt no.937, dtd. 13/04/2010 for Rs.10,000/-, receipt no.1815, dt.13/12/2010 for Rs.20,000/- and receipt no.181, dt.15/12/2010 for Rs.80,000/-, total amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- issued to the complainant, for the purchase of Flat No. B-202,  Suraj Complex, Gut No.08, Shilottar-Raichur, Tal- Panvel, Dist- Raigad (Carpet Area 370 Sq.Ft.), by the opposite party i.e, by the Suraj Enterprises, for the part of consideration amount received from the complainant, Mr.Shirish Chavan has signed for Suraj Enterprises as a proprietor and thereby has admitted the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the complainant for purchasing the said flat.  Hence, the complainant is a consumer of Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor Mr. Shirish R. Chavan.  But, there is no privity of contract between other three persons who are shown as partners of the Suraj Enterprises and the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the Suraj Enterprises is a partnership firm.  Hence, no order is required to be passed against opposite party namely (II)Smt. Joyti Shrishkumar Chavan, III)Mr.Deepak Tambe and (IV)Mr. Santosh Tambe.

            Despite of the receipt of above mentioned amount, the Opposite Party  i.e, Suraj Enterprises failed to give possession of the said flat, to the Complainant by completing necessary legal formalities, but as stated by the complainant in his complaint opposite party has called him on 16/12/2011 to take back the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party, and expressed his inability to give the possession of the flat and the complainant was also ready to accept the refund of the amount with interest, as stated by the complainant in his pleadings, para no. 4 of the complaint. 

            The Complainant has filed a copy of FIR filed against the opposite party, about the fraud committed and cheating done by the proprietor of the opposite party towards the plenty of flat purchasers like complainant, which shows that, by keeping the complainant and other proposed flat purchasers in dark, opposite parties used to sell  flats/ rooms which were already, sold to other 4 to 5 persons earlier, with a false promises of giving possession of the said flats by completing necessary legal formalities.

                        The Complainant has suffered a lot due to non delivery of the possession of the flat booked by him, for last 5 years, despite of payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to the opposite party.  Hence, the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental torture and Rs.20,000/- for the litigation charges to the complainant, apart from the possession of the said flat or refund of Rs.2,00,000/- accepted from the complainant for the said flat alongwith the interest @ 12% from 15/12/2010.

Hence in the interest of justice, we passed the following order -                                 

Final Order

1. CC/52/13 is partly allowed.
2. The Opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises as a proprietary concerned through it’s proprietor Mr Shirish R.Chavan is directed to  execute the Agreement for Sale within the period of 2 months from the outward date of this order with the complainant pertaining to the sale of the said flat,  by accepting the rest of the consideration amount from him within period of 2 months from the outward date of this order and immediately on receipt of the rest of the consideration  amount opposite party is directed to give  the possession of the said Flat No. B-202, Suraj Complex, Gut No.08, Shilottar-Raichur, Tal- Panvel, Dist-Raigad (Carpet Area 370 Sq.Ft.), to the complainant.

                                                            (or)

The Opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises as a proprietary concerned through it’s proprietor Mr Shirish R.Chavan is directed to refund Rs.2,00,000/- with 12% interest on it from 15/12/2010, till actual realization of the amount to the complainant.

3. Prayer for refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid on account of  the rent  by the complainant is rejected due to lack of documentary evidence such as leave and license agreement /rent receipts etc. for the actual rent paid by the complainant.  Similarly prayer for the refund of interest paid on bank loan is rejected in absence of documentary evidence.
4. The Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for the compensation for the mental torture and Rs.20,000/- for the litigation charges to the complainant. The Compliance of the said order is to be done by the opposite party i.e, Suraj Enterprises through it’s proprietor, Mr.Shirish R.Chavan within a period of 2 months from the outward date of this order.
5. No order is passed against other opposite parties shown as partners of I)Suraj Enterprises, i.e. II) Smt. Joyti Shrishkumar Chavan. III) Mr. Deepak Tambe, and against (IV) Mr. Santosh Tambe as there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant.
6.  Send certified copies to all the concerned parties free of cost. 

Place – Kokan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai.

Date –23/06/2015