Complaint Case No. CC/13/341. Case: Ashish Chandrakant Sheth Vs Dharti Enterprises. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Complaint Case No. CC/13/341 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K.K. Iyenger, Advocate and For Respondents: Anita Marathe, Advocate |
| Judges | P.B. Joshi, J. (Presiding Member) and Narendra Kawde, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 60 (Maha.) |
| Judgement Date | June 19, 2014 |
| Court | Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Narendra Kawde, Member
-
Heard on the point of admission at length. On behalf of the Complainants it is argued that an amount of Rs. 18,00,000 was paid to the Opponent against the receipt which indicates number of Flat 1014 and the payment has been made by cheque on 8.9.2008. Thereafter the legal notice was issued in the year 2013 to the Opponents since possession of the flat was not delivered. Opponents have taken a stand that the amount of Rs. 18,00,000 paid was a routine practice of investment in the project against the projected allotment of the flat. The consumer complaint has been filed by the power of attorney holder on behalf of the Complainants. The flat was allegedly purchased by the Complainants jointly. However, the Complainant could not submit any proof on the point of agreed total consideration which according to the Complainant was not mentioned in the receipt by the Opponents. During the period of almost five years i.e. from the date of issue of first legal notice Complainants could not demonstrate what action or persuasion was made on their behalf for alleged transaction of purchase of the flat. The learned Advocate of the Opponents vehemently opposed the admission by filing written reply and during the course of arguments it was submitted that the power of attorney holder has been staying in the same vicinity where the development project of the Opponents was under construction. The contention of the Complainants that the sale price was agreed at Rs. 60,00,000 i.e. @ Rs. 5,000 per sq.ft., is seriously challenged by the Opponents as there was no such consideration agreed upon between the parties since amount of Rs. 18,00,000 was received as an investment in the project of the Opponents. It was further contended that the Complainants invested this amount for good returns in the project of the Opponents. The project has been completed somewhere in the year 2011. Occupation certificate has also been obtained thereafter and the entire flats in the project have been sold including one alleged to have been sold to the Complainants. There is no other document whatsoever adduced by the Complainant to establish that the sale transaction was ever agreed to be entertained between the parties except that the sole reliance on the receipt issued by the Opponents for the amount of Rs. 18,00,000 which does not state total consideration, nor there is any further communication demonstrating the agreement between the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial