C.C. Nos. 17 to 21 of 2014. Case: Daulat Alwani and Ors. Vs Kayjay Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd.. Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case Number:C.C. Nos. 17 to 21 of 2014
Party Name:Daulat Alwani and Ors. Vs Kayjay Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel:For Appellant: V.K. Daniel, Advocate and For Respondents: C.F. de'Sousa, Advocate
Judges:N.A. Britto, J. (President) and Vidhya R. Gurav, Member
Issue:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17
Citation:I (2015) CPJ 110 (Goa)
Judgement Date:January 23, 2015
Court:Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

N.A. Britto, J. (President)

  1. These consumer complaints can be conveniently disposed of by this common order, as the facts are almost common, and so also the law applicable thereto. The complainants are the residents of either Hongkong or Dubai, and complainant Ramesh Melwani appears to be a foreign national. The complainants have filed these complaints through their power of attorney Shri Nandu Asrani. The complaints are filed seeking an order directing the OP to handover possession of the apartments allotted to them, for execution of sale deeds and for compensation.

  2. The OP is a Company and Haresh D. Kotwani is its Managing Director. The OP has put up a project known as Joia do Mar consisting of four villas and three apartments blocks, namely A, B, and C and one studio apartment block D, each consisting of twelve units, and the OP has sold to the complainants the apartments or flats by allotment letters of different dates for different sums and the receipts for payments made, were issued on 19.3.2009. As per the OP, the said allotment letters is a contract entered into between the complainants and OP for the sale of flats. Block A was completed on or about 20.2.2008 and Block C was completed on or about 13.3.2008. The dates of allotment letters, the apartments booked, the payments made, are tabulated herein below for easy reference and are as follows:

  3. The Complainants say that the said Nandu Asrani and Ramesh Moorjani (complainant in C.C. No. 21/14) were common friends and were known to Haresh D. Kotwani, the Managing Director of the OP. According to the complainants, as per the discussions held between the complainants, the said Ramesh Moorjani and the Managing Director of the OP, that the complainants had agreed to purchase the said apartments; and as far as complainant Ramesh Moorjani is concerned, the said complainant has stated that he, the complainant, had agreed to purchase the apartments pursuant to the discussions held between him (the complainant) and the Managing Director of the OP, the said Haresh D. Kotwani. The OP has stated that Shri Nandu Asrani, the attorney of the complainants and the complainant Shri Ramesh Moorjani are both in the business of real estate investments and have a group of investors along with whom they also invest in upcoming projects and that they also act as real state brokers and approach developers for recommending their projects to the investors and charge hefty brokerage commissions. We are inclined to believe that the OP sold the apartment in question to the complainants and complainants purchased the same through the said Asrani and Ramesh Moorjani without knowing much about the project itself. The OP has also stated that the complainants had no problem with the OP and these present complaints have been filed at the instigation of the said Nandu Asrani. Although complainant Ramesh Moorjani and attorney Shri Asrani were informed on or about 27.3.11 by the Director of the OP, Khush Kotwani, that the project was completed three years prior to it, one does not know whether the said information was conveyed to the other complainants by the attorney of the complainants Shri Nandu Asrani or for that matter the complainant Ramesh Moorjani. Infact, complainant Ramesh Moorjani informed the Managing Director of the OP by letter dated 21.6.2007 (copy at page 25) that most of his customers (referring to other complainants) were straight forward persons and had to be, sometimes handled very carefully and with kid's gloves, and, some of them had bought (the apartments) because of continuous forcing and pushing and some bought only on his word and friendship.

  4. Be that as it may, the OP contested the complaints stating that the complaints could not be filed through the attorney Shri Nandu Asrani as he does not have any personal knowledge of the transaction between the complainant and OP; that this State Commission lacked pecuniary jurisdiction; that the complaints are barred by limitation as the occupancy certificates were obtained by the OP in February/March 2008 and the attorney of the complainants was informed by letter dated 6.5.2008 that the apartments were completed and ready for possession and the attorney had communicated the same to the complainant Ramesh Moorjani by letter dated 7.7.2008 stating that the apartments were ready for possession; and that the complainants are not consumers as the complainants had booked the said apartments for resale to make profits.

  5. When the complaints were taken up for final arguments on or about 21.10.2014, a statement was made on behalf of the OP, by their learned Advocate Mr. C.F. de'Sousa that the OP has always been willing to handover the possession of the apartments in question right from the year 2008 till date. The complainants through their learned Advocate Mr. V.K. Daniel, accepted the offer made on behalf of the OP, and agreed to take over the possession of the apartments in...

To continue reading

Request your trial