PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE 

1)       The Complainants by this complaint have prayed to hold and declare that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practices under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).     It is prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to provide automatic lift, common TV Antenna, Society’s Office, beautiful entrance to the building as per the list of amenities agreed under the Agreement.     

2)           

3)         In addition, Rs.25,000/- were required to be paid as society charges alongwith miscellaneous charges of Rs.20,000/-         

4)         

5)         .03 Sq. Ft. super built-up equivalent to 655.74 Sq.Ft. and the Flat Number and the Wing Number were also being changed to 601 in ‘D’ Wing in the said building.     

6)             It is alleged that the Opposite Parties collected the aforesaid amount under the pretext of execution of agreement but the Opposite Parties did not execute the agreement though they were fully aware of the nature and terms of the transaction but failed and neglected to enter into agreement despite collecting huge amounts from the Complainants.  

7)             

8)               

9)       th th th    th  

10)             th  

11)       

12)         

13)           

14)          The said letter and cheque was acknowledged by the Opposite Parties on 30/05/03.         

15)       The Complainants therefore, claimed interest @ 18% on the aforesaid amount till the date of realization of it. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties had issued 14 stamped receipts acknowledging the payment of Rs.13,12,535/- towards the cost of the entire flat and of Rs.50,000/- towards the electric meter and MHADA payment, etc. The copy of the statement and 14 stamped receipts are marked as Annexure - ‘C-27’ colly.  th    

16)     It is alleged that the Opposite Parties have constructed the illegal structure on the terrace thereby deprived the Complainants the common facility granted to them and for which the Opposite Parties have collected huge amounts from the Complainants. .3 Sq.Ft. as per allotment letter dtd.15/06/2000 and the note dtd.07/03/2000. It is submitted that thus, the Complainant have paid for the common facility area of 219.29 Sq.Ft. to the tune of Rs.3,28,935/- @ Rs.1,500/- per Sq.Ft. by cheque and thus, the Complainants are entitled for the refund of the said amount with interest @ 18% p.a. for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant and their family members. 

17)                  

18)     written statement                  

19)                  amount of the total consideration the Opposite Parties handed over a blank agreement to the Complainants for stamping on 08/07/01 and the draft copy of the agreement was lying with the Complainants and they got it stamped on 28/11/01. It is contended that the Opposite Parties reminded the Complainants for execution the said agreement but the Complainants informed that they have financial crunch and they are arranging fund to pay the stamp duty.   

It is denied that the Complainants were constrained to make payments under threats.     

20)      ththth           

21)          

22)     as perthe receipts issued by the Opposite Parties.       

23)        ‘D’Wing of the building had been sold to the occupier.      

24)          

25)                  

26)        written arguments.   

27)      

                      V/s. M.K. Gupta, (1994) I Supreme Court Cases 243.

           Petition No.202 of 1993, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 29/11/1995.

6)    Cosmos Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. V/s. Tarloid Pvt. Ltd., I (2007) CPJ 23. 

7)    Mr. B. Sudhakar Shetty V/s. M/s. Lok Housing & Constructions Ltd. in Complaint Case No.08/91, decided by the Hon’ble State Commission Maharashtra on 08/08/2011. 

8)    Kalpita Enclave Co-op Hgs. Soc. Ltd. V/s. M/s. Kiran Builders Pvt. Ltd., 1987(1) Bombay CR 355.

9)    Mrs. Arti Modi V/s. Mr. Ramesh G. Gangwani and Ors., decided by the Hon’ble State Commission Maharashtra in Complaint Case No.09/203, on 14/02/2011.

10)

11)

12)

13)

14)15) M/s. Mahesh Builders V/s. Sachita Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., First Appeal No.64/2005, decdied on 19/10/05 by the Hon’ble National Commission.

16) Pushpendra Complex Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. V/s. Abhay Mahindra Jain, 2007 (3) CPR 304.

17) Shri. Swami Kumar Banwilkar & Ors. V/s. M/s. Nikhil Builders, CC.No.47/96, decided on 26/05/08 by the Hon’ble State Commission Maharashtra .18) The Kapol Co-op Bank Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2005 Criminal Law Journal, 765.

28)        written statement and affidavit of evidence of Opposite Parties.   

29)            

30)      

31)                      

32)           

33)         

34)        

35)       th          

36)       

37)               

38)              

O R D E R

i.                   Complaint No.247/2005 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

ii.                Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.