Judgment:
Oral Order:
Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President
Heard Mr. S.D. Daware-Advocate for the petitioner.
This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated nil passed in consumer complaint no.PDF/44/2009. Respondent/original complainant has filed the complaint seeking relief that the revision petitioner be directed to form a Corporate body, apartment/condominium, and execute conveyance deed in its favour, along with Deed of Apartments by a stipulated time bound programme and, further, it is prayed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreements as per the provisions of MOFA.
Further, it is prayed to pay/part with the amount, to the respondent which he has earned by erecting and by allowing the erection of tower and generators over the common spaces, terraces, etc.
What is important to be noted is that, that the flat which was desired to be purchased by respondent was valued at Rs.12,25,000/- Ld.counsel for the revision petitioner states that except Rs.13,000/-, full flat consideration has been received from the respondent/complainant. Respondent/complainant has also been put into possession of the property on 06/02/2003. Under these circumstances, it is for the revision petitioner/ developer to comply with the provisions of the Act and to execute conveyance in favour of the respondent and, thereby, forming a society and/or condominium. Said obligation is not discharged and, therefore, complainant has approached the District Consumer Forum. By way of compensation he has claimed an amount of Rs.10 lakhs. So the total claim as stands is Rs.10,13,000/- at the most. Total claim involved is Rs.10,13,000/-. At the most Rs.10,13,000/- revision petitioner may claim. Total valuation of the reliefs which is being claimed is within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum. Therefore, complaint has been rightly filed. Unnecessarily the objection in respect of preliminary objection has been raised. Matter was contested and having it decided against him present revision petition has been filed. That shows that builder/revision petitioner is not interested in obeying provisions of law and comply and discharge the obligations which he is supposed to discharge under the law. Prima facie he is interested in protraction of the matter and to harass the complainant and, therefore, such type of revision petition is required to be rejected having found that there is no merit. Hence the following order:-
Order
1. Revision petition stands rejected.
2. For filing such unwarranted revision petition, we are imposing cost of Rs.5000/- on the revisionist. Cost shall be paid within a period of two weeks. If revision petitioner does not deposit the said amount, certificate should be issued in favour of respondent under section 25(3) for execution of order.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.