Judgment:
Per Smt S.P. Lale, Honble Member:
Appeal baring no.873/2007 filed by the org. opposite party/Trimurti Builders and Developers feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16/04/2007 passed in consumer complaint no. 79/2006 passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane. Forum below partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed opposite party as under:-
â1. Complaint No.79/2006 is partly allowed.
2. Opponent is directed to refund Rs,36,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand only) along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of respective payment.
3. Opponent is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards the compensation.
4. Opponent is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards the cost of this complaint.
5. Opponent is directed to obtain Occupancy Certificate and from the society and effect the transfer of property in the name of Society within 8 weeks from the date of passing of this orderâ.
Appeal bearing no.859/2007 is filed by the org. complainant against the same order being dissatisfied with the relief granted in his favour, supra.
Since both these appeals arise out of common judgment, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this common order. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:
Complainant entered into an agreement for purchase of flat bearing no.901 at 9th floor at Trimurti Tower at Navi Mumbai with opposite party. Total cost of flat was agreed at Rs.10,80,000/- and area of the said flat was 911 sq.ft. The complainant paid entire consideration to the opposite party as agreed. According to the complainant, she further paid Rs.80,000/- towards water, electricity and society transfer charges to the opposite party. The opposite party further demanded Rs.36,000/- being the excess amount from the complainant. It is further alleged by the complainant that the opposite party vide its letter dated 24/11/2004 informed the complainant that the area of the flat is increased by 25 sq.ft. and she has to pay Rs.33,125/- before taking possession to the opposite party and accordingly complainant paid Rs.33,125/- to the opposite party. It is alleged by the complainant that opposite party illegally demanded firstly Rs.36,000/- and secondly Rs.33,125/- from the complainant without obtaining occupancy certificate from Navi Mumbai Municipal Authority. Complainant further alleged that opposite party failed to provide two lifts, fire fighting system and generators, marbonite tiles etc. Therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before Forum below for deficiency in service.
Opposite party filed written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant. It pleaded that complainant is an Investor and the complainants main dispute is with regard to pricing and consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to decide the pricing dispute. It further pleaded that no extra amount has been charged by the opposite party. The complainant was defaulter and therefore, society could not be formed. Opposite party is following up with the CIDCO for obtaining occupancy certificate and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint. After considering the documents and affidavits, Forum below partly allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order.
We heard Shri Yeshwant Aldankar/ Husband of complainant in person on her behalf and Adv.Shri U.B.Wavikar for opposite party.
We perused the material on record. We are finding that the appeal filed by the complainant i.e. Appeal No.859/2007 is deserves to be partly allowed. Opposite party vide its letter dated 24/11/2004 informed the complainant regarding increased in the area by 25 sq.ft. and the complainant did not object for the same and paid the additional amount to the opposite party. Regarding other allegations for not providing amenities like marbonate tiles, Otis lift, the complainant has not produced any evidence to substantiate the same. Appeal bearing no.873/2007 is filed by the opposite party/builder; the builder has handed over the possession of the flat to the complainant without obtaining occupancy certificate. It amounts to deficiency in service as per Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. In the result, we pass the following order:-
Order:
1. Appeal No.859/2007 filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
2. Appeal No.873/2007 filed by the opposite party is partly allowed.
3. Paragraph no.2 of the operative part of the impugned order directing to refund Rs.36,000/- is hereby quashed and set aside. Other part of the impugned order stands confirmed.
5. No order as to costs.
6. Misc.Application No.1171/2007- stay stands disposed of.
5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.