First Appeal No. A/11/669. Case: Sakharam Dagadu Salunkhe Vs Audumbar Construction Co.. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. A/11/669 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Prasad K. Kulkarni, Advocate and For Respondents: Bhaskar Yogi i/b Uday B. Wavikar, Advocates |
| Judges | R.C. Chavan, J. (President) and Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Citation | 2014 (4) AllMR 25, II (2014) CPJ 145 (Maha.) |
| Judgement Date | April 02, 2014 |
| Court | Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member
-
This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.6.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint No. CC/08/751 directing the opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000 from 6.3.2005 along with interest @ 9% p.a. till realization within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of order. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:
The complainants had booked a flat No. 202 in D wing, Building No. 2, 2nd floor, Shrikrishna Complex, Western Express Highway, Borivali (E) for consideration of Rs. 13,02,000 and misc. expenses Rs. 43,340. As per the agreement, possession of the said flat was to be handed over on or before 30.11.2006. The complainants paid an amount of Rs. 75,000 on 6.3.2005. Thereafter, complainants approached to ICICI Bank for Housing Loan and the bank had sanctioned loan of Rs. 13,00,000 to the complainants. It is the contention of the complainants that they asked the opponents to provide the papers required by the bank for releasing the loan. However, opponents did not supply the required papers. It is further contended that the complainants received a letter dated 11.10.2006 asking the complainants to pay an amount of Rs. 5,89,020. The complainants had prepared a cheque of Rs. 5,89,020 and dispatched it to the opponents through courier on 13.8.2008. The complainants further contended that they had issued notice dated 26.8.2008 requesting to hand over the possession of the flat. However, the opponents have replied the same by their reply dated 11.9.2008 asking the complainants to pay more amount for the possession. Alleging not handing over possession of the flat as deficiency in service, the complainants have filed consumer complaint praying that the opponents be directed to hand over possession of the flat No. 202 as mentioned above and further prayed that opponents be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 per month for house rent as the opponents have failed to hand over the possession of the flat as per the agreement and costs of Rs. 10,000.
The opponents had contested the complaint by filing written version admitting the agreement dated 14.3.2005 and the payment of Rs. 75,000 by the complainants. However, the opponents contended that in the agreement there was a payment schedule and as per the payment schedule, the complainants had not made the payment. The opponents had sent them demand letters...
To continue reading
Request your trial