State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Suresh Trimbak Hattekar vs M/S. Teirth Developers And Suyojit ... on 15 February, 2023
CC/13/478
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint Case No. CC/13/478
Mr.Suresh Trimbak Hattekar,
Residing at Flat No.R-702,
Radha Building, Alankapuri,
Pashan - Sus Road, Pashan,
Pune - 21. ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Teirth Developers & Suyojit Infrastructure
Ltd. A Joint Venture, Having Office at:
8, Sneh Centre, F.C. Road,
Shivaji Nagar, Pune - 411 004.
2. M/s.Teirth Developers,
A Proprietorship firm of
Mr.Vijay Tukaram Raundal
Having address at:
Teerth Realties Office No.102,
1st Floor, Sai Empire,
Near ICICI Bank,
Baner Road, Pune - 411 045.
3. Suyojit Infrastructure Ltd.,
Office at F-1/2, Suyojit Heights,
Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan,
Sharanpur Road, Nashik. ............Opponents(s)
BEFORE:
Justice S.P. Tavade - President
S.T. Barne - Judicial Member
For the
Advocate Shri Chirag Dave along with
Complainant:
learned Advocate Shri Rahat Kalpatni and
learned Advocate Shri Shirish Kadlag.
.
For the
Advocate Anand Patwardhan
Opponent:
1
CC/13/478
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Justice S.P. Tavade - President:
The Complainant has filed present complaint under Section 17 r/w Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by alleging deficiency in service rendered to the complainant by the opponents as well as unfair trade practice played by the opponents.
(2) The complainant is resident of P.une. The opponent no.1 is joint venture of Opponent nos.2 and 3 as per their Joint Venture Agreement dated 03/08/2008. The opponent nos.2 and 3 are involved in day-to-day affairs of opponent no.1. The opponents had purchased land admeasuring 3,02,020.00 sq.meters out of land bearing Survey No.123/1, 123/2, 123/3/1, 123/3/2, 123/3/4 situated at Village Sus, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune. The complainant and other people had formed registered Co-operative Housing Society known as "The Aarohi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd." having its 166 members and aforesaid society has been registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The complainant and members of the society approached to opponent no.3 with a request to construct flats, Row-houses, Twin-Bungalows as per the requirements of its members as a housing scheme in or around Village - Sus, Pune. The opponent nos.2 and 3 agreed to develop the land for housing scheme on certain terms and conditions by forming Joint Venture and formulated a scheme for complainant and members of its housing society.
(3) The opponents had decided to construct total five buildings, namely "C" consists of 9 floors, "D" consists of 9 and 1/2 floors, "E"
2CC/13/478 consists of 10 floors, "F" consists of 9 floors and "G" consists of 9 floors along with 20 twin bungalows and 22 Row Houses on the said property. Accordingly opponents prepared layout and building plans. It was agreed that the opponents should not amend, modify, alter or make out addition in the layout and building plans without prior written approval of the complainant and members of the society. The complainant decided to book residential unit to be constructed by opponents. Accordingly he paid 15% of the total consideration of Rs.27,24,220/-. The opponents accepted the said amount and allotted Unit No.E-301, 3rd Floor in "E" Building admeasuring saleable built up area of 1433.8 sq.feet with covered car parking No.E-301 (hereinafter referred to as "Said Residential Unit"). The opponents executed registered Agreement for Sale dated 02/04/2009 in favour of the complainant. It was agreed between the opponents and the complainant that the opponents shall handover physical possession of the Said Residential Unit on or before 30/07/2010 to the complainant. It was also agreed that the opponents shall obtain all necessary permissions including completion certificate from appropriate authority. It was also greed between the opponents and the complainant that Clause no.11 of the Agreement that if the opponents fail or neglect to handover physical possession of the Said Residential Unit within agreed period of time then opponents shall pay simple interest @10% per annum upon the payment already received by the opponents from the complainant or the opponents shall pay and bear actual interest part of loan installments to the complainant or other purchasers till possession is handed over to such purchaser whichever is higher.
(4) It is contended that opponents failed to handover possession of the Said Residential Unit to complainant on 31/07/2010 on the ground 3 CC/13/478 that there is delay on their part to obtain the clearance from the concerned Government Department. The opponents informed that they had applied to Government Department for clearance of project and they had to receive clearance certificate from the Department. The complainant asked the opponents to produce the said correspondence, but, opponents failed and neglected to produce such correspondence. It is contended that the opponents with malafide intention to procure more and more money from complainant and other members of the society stated that there is delay in obtaining clearance certificate from various authorities of Governments Departments. It was contended that after various oral requests and in writing on the part of the complainant the opponents had not shown any interest to handover possession of Said Residential Unit to the complainant after receipt of more than 90% of the amount of consideration. Hence, the complainant had filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pune. Said complaint was returned to the complainant on the ground of jurisdiction and directed him to file the same before the appropriate authority within six weeks. Therefore, the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Commission. It was contended that the opponents had filed reply before the District Commission, Pune wherein it was agreed that they will handover possession of Said Residential Unit on or before 31/05/2013. In spite of specific assurance the opponents have failed to handover possession of Said Residential Unit to the complainant.
(5) It is contended that the opponents have specifically promised and agreed to provide all amenities as per second Schedule of the agreement executed in favour of the complainant. It is contended 4 CC/13/478 that the opponents had agreed to construct Said Residential Unit for complainant with built-up area of 1433.8 sq.ft. But, upon verification of the same the complainant found that actual built-up area of the Said Residential Unit is less than specifically mentioned in the agreement. The opponents have specifically agreed to provide hot and cold water tap in dry balcony area in Said Residential Unit. Similarly, they had specifically agreed to provide branded Solar Water Heater System in Said Residential Unit. But, the said facilities are not provided by the opponents. It is contended that as per specific terms and conditions of the said agreement the opponents failed and neglected to handover the possession of Said Residential Unit to the complainant. It is contended that due to non- delivery of Said Residential Unit within stipulated period the complainant has suffered huge financial loss. Hence, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for causing loss, inconvenience, mental agony, stress and harassment. It is contended that due to non-delivery of possession of Said Residential Unit the complainant has sustained financial loss in terms of rent of Rs.15,000/- per month and hence, he has suffered a monetary loss worth of Rs.5,40,000/- for three years from 30/07/2010 till filing of the present complaint.
(6) It is contended that the complainant is paying home loan along with interest for non-delivery of possession of the flat and the Complainant has suffered huge loss in terms of money. It is contended that the complainant made enquiry with the opponents about the delay in delivering possession of Said Residential Unit but the opponents had given evasive answers and false promises and assurances. It is contended that as per provisions of Section 2(c) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of 5 CC/13/478 Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA), the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.15,40,000/- to the complainant as they failed, neglected and avoided to deliver the possession of Said Residential Unit. It is contended that the opponents had assured that they would provide EURO 2X2 vitrified tiles of premium quality in Said Residential Unit, but the opponents used lower quality of tiles. The opponents had also agreed to provide amenities as per second schedule of agreement including generator back up for common areas and passenger lifts, inverter in each house, society office, religious hall for meditation and worship of individual faiths, a club along with two tennis courts, one basketball court, swimming pool for adult and kids, kids area with baby sitting facility, party garden, multipurpose room with cards tables, Gym, table tennis and pool tables, ample parking, two squash courts etc., but, till date the opponents have not made any progress for the same. It is also contended that the opponents had agreed to provide the grills for Said Residential Unit as well as to provide window frames with double powder coated aluminium frame in white/dark brawn colour but the opponents changed the same without knowledge and information to the complainant. It is contended that the opponents have made major changes in Said Residential Unit without taking consent from the complainant. The opponents failed to provide sufficient reasons for delay along with demand letters, due to which Mortgage Bank denied making payments towards demand letters and complainant has to somehow manage the payment from his own pocket as opponents have threatened the dire consequence by canceling the booking of Said Residential Unit. The Complainant has prayed for possession of Said Residential Unit No.E-301, 3rd Floor in "E" Building admeasuring saleable built up area of 1433.8 6 CC/13/478 sq.feet with covered car parking No.E-301 complete in all aspects and amenities as per the Second Schedule and Annexure G of Registered Agreement for Sale dated 02/04/2009. The complainant has also claimed interest @18% per annum on the amount paid by the complainant from time to time to opponents till date the opponents handover the possession of Said Residential Unit. The Complainant has also claimed rent of Rs.15,000/- per month from 30/07/2010 till filing of complaint and till the date of actual possession. He has also claimed compensation and costs of litigation.
(7) The opponents were served with the notice. They appeared and filed their written version. They specifically denied that opponents are guilty of deficiency in service. It is contended that the complaint is hopelessly time barred by limitation. It is contended that the consumer complaint was filed initially before the District commission, Pune. As the reliefs claimed by the complainant are beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission the complaint was returned to complainant for filing it before the appropriate Forum. The consumer complaint before this Commission is beyond the period of limitation. The complainant is guilty of delay and lapses. The complainant has flouted the order dated 23/08/2013 passed by the District Commission, Pune. It is contended that the complainant and other people approached the opponents for group booking of flats in the month of January, 2008. It was agreed that the group shall form Co-operative Housing Society and office bearers of the society shall initially act for all of its members while dealing with the opponents. Most of the members expressed their desire to raise loan from the Bank and Financial Institution for individual payment. After seeing the title 7 CC/13/478 document, Bank showed their willingness to sanction loan to the members of the society. Accordingly, Memorandum of Understanding dated 21/06/2008 was entered into between the parties. In view of Memorandum of Understanding dated 21/06/2008, land situated at Survey No.123 of Village Sus was initially acquired by the opponents for the development. Main intention behind entering into the Memorandum of Understanding with the said society was to create funds for the development of the said society. Hence, at least 25% discount was offered to all the members of the society purchasing flats/row-houses/twin bungalows in the said scheme.
(8) It is contended that the opponents immediately finalized the layout and building plan and submitted it for sanction. Initially, the plan was sanctioned by the Town Planning Authorities on 18/02/2009. The opponents immediately started development work on the site. The building project commenced thereafter with numerous meetings in the office of the opponents. The office bearers of the society would approved the plan partly and suggested changes from time to time. The architect was changed midway as the elevations were not acceptable to the office bearers of the society. As per Term No.17 of Memorandum of Understanding, possessions of respective flats were to be given to all members of the society within 18 months from 15/04/2008. Immediately after execution of said Memorandum of Understanding it is expected that one by one the members of the society shall approach the opponents for execution of agreement. This could have facilitated the bank to sanction loan for the members and expedite the work of construction. The society, namely, The Aarohi Co-op. Housing Society started certain disputes regarding sanction and revision of the construction plans. The 8 CC/13/478 sanction/revision of the building plans were absolutely as per Development Control Rules and in consonance with the provisions of Section-7 and 7-A of MOFA. On 28/08/2009 a new Government Resolution was passed and number of rules were changed pertaining to number of buildings permitted, the number of floors in each building and the number of flats on each floors. Size of ducts is also revised. The change in the rules happened twice. As such plans were revised twice. The revised N.A. order dated 26/11/2010 is filed separately. This resulted in changes in the agreement which was objected to by the Aarohi Co-op. Housing Society members till September 2010. Finally on 25/09/2010 in a meeting between promoters and office bearers of the Aarohi Co-op. Housing Society, it was explained that changes are due to Government Resolution and the promoters have no control over it. This delay in not accepting the new agreement resulted in agreements not being registered and banks are not disbursing the loan. The promoters borrowed the money from other sources to keep the construction work going. Due to such dispute raised by the society delay was caused. Members of the society including the complainant avoided to approach the opponents for execution of agreement. After many remainders agreement was executed on 02/04/2009. In early 2009 swine flu epidemic broke out in Pune and the Government Officers were busy whereby building sanctions were low on priority. In September 2009 State Elections were announced. Said announcement caused further delay as the Government Officers were deployed elsewhere. The complainant or his bankers have paid monetary consideration under the agreement on demand though at late stage. A part of total consideration is still due and payable by the complainant. The complainant is liable to pay the same at the time of handing over possession of the said flat.
9CC/13/478 As per original understanding, the opponents agreed to hand over possession of the said flat to the complainant on or before 30/07/2010. However, possession was subject to terms mentioned in Clause 11 of the agreement. As per para 12 of the agreement, certain Force Majures conditions the possession of the flat was agreed to be delayed.
(9) It has been made mandatory upon the developers by the Government to obtain permission/NOC of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board as regards "Consent to establish" and "Consent to operate" the construction scheme. In addition, it was also made mandatory that in each excess construction scheme, Clearance Certificate from the Environment Department of the State Government was made mandatory and should be obtained before completion of any such scheme. Accordingly, opponents applied for and obtained such clearance from such Competent Authority. In the meantime, development work was going on with full speed. However, due to imposition of such restrictions, opponents forced to comply with the same which took one year time to apply for and obtain such clearance from the concerned Government Departments. In the meantime, proposed Regional Plan of the Town Planning, Pune was finalized and as per Government Notification, office of Collector, Pune has informed by its letter dated 14/12/2011 to concerned Sub-Divisional Officer to finalise the area of road widening, demarcate the same, take possession of the same and obtain TDR for the concerned developer. Such road has been planned through the subject land under the scheme. After receiving such notice from the office of S.D.O., opponents approached the said authority and showed their willingness to leave the area for road widening. After TDR passed, the Collector issued NOC to the 10 CC/13/478 opponents on 23/04/2012. Further task of Fire Department NOC, Lift NOC, water and electricity clearances were halted by the concerned departments without which no completion certificate is issued by the Town Planning Authority.
(10) It is contended that without such completion certificate, no physical possession of the flats/units can be handed over to the flat holders. It is contended that the construction of the said flat of the complainant has been completed on or before the due date of possession. Due to stringent provisions of law, no further clearances could be obtained for some time. The opponents will be allowed to hand over possession of the flat to the complainant on receipt of completion certificate from the concerned authority. For these reasons, opponents are not liable to pay interest/compensation as asked by the complainant. It is contended that what was agreed to be sold to the complainant is set out in unambiguous terms of the agreement executed in favour of the complainant. The opponents agreed to provide car parking space which is already in place. As per agreement, amenities are placed. The complainant has given consent for change of building layout plan. Changes carried out are as per provisions of Section 7A MOFA. Service Tax has been made applicable by the Government to all the payments made after 01/07/2010. The opponents have collected the amount of Service Tax/VAT as per rules and not collected any extra amount from the complainant. The opponents were and are always ready to hand over possession of agreed flat to the complainant after receipt of remaining consideration. It is contended that the opponents are not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the complainant. Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11CC/13/478 (11) After hearing both sides and on going through the record following points arise for determination and we record our findings for the reasons given below :-
Sr. Points Findings
No.
1. Whether consumer complaint is : Yes
within limitation?
2. Whether complainant has proved : Yes, As per
that opponents are guilty of final order.
deficiency in service?
3. Whether complainant is entitled : As per final
for reliefs? If yes, to what extent? order.
4. What order? : As per final
order.
(12) To substantiate the consumer complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence and he has placed on record several documents, namely Agreement To Sale dated 02/04/2009, Sale Deed of land in question executed in favour of the opponents, the layout plan, 7/12 extract of land in question, Annexure G to the Agreement showing amenities to be provided to the flat purchasers, The Special Power of Attorney given by Kalyan Sukhdev Garad to opponent no.3, Index - 2 of the land in question, General Power of Attorney in favour of Anil Jain and Vaishali Jain on behalf of M/s.Suyojit Infrastructure Ltd., Special Power of attorney to Ashok Kanhailal Nahar executed by M/s.Suyojeet Infrastructure, order of the District Commission Pune filed by the Complainant and other purchasers whereby the complainant was directed to file the complaint in appropriate Forum within six weeks, receipts of payment made by 12 CC/13/478 the complainant, loan sanction letter issued by State Bank of India, letter issued by Society in favour of the complainant.
(13) The opponents have filed Affidavit of Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Sole Proprietor of opponent no.1 and power of attorney holder of opponent no.3. Opponents have filed on record an application for getting environment clearance dated 24/09/2010, N.A. Order dated 26/11/2010, Consent from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board on 27/08/2013, copy of letter of Collector dated 14/12/2011, Environment Clearance Certificate dated 23/01/2012, NOC from the Collector regarding F.S.I. dated 23/04/2012, application for claiming part Occupancy Certificate from the Collector dated 03/04/2013, Consent to establish and Consent to operate from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board dated 27/08/2013, Structural Stability & Completion Certificate dated 22/10/2012.
(14) We heard advocates of the complainant and the opponents. On going through the documents on record it is crystal clear that the opponents had purchased the land bearing Survey Nos.123/1, 123/2, 123/3/1, 123/3/2, 123/4/2 and 123/6/2 at Village Sus, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune. The opponent no.2 had acquired development right in respect of the said land. The Opponent no.3 entered into agreement with the opponent nos.1 and 2 to develop the above land. The complainant and other 165 members formed the society known as The Aarohi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which is registered as per the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The complainant is member of the Aarohi Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. He agreed to purchase the said Residential Unit. The Complainant paid total consideration of Rs.25,84,421/-. The opponents agreed to sell Said Residential Unit to the complainant and executed registered Agreement to Sell dated 13 CC/13/478 02/04/2009 wherein the opponents had agreed to handover the possession of the flat on or before 30th July, 2010. The complainant has given details of Sanction/clearance/approvals, status for the building Aarohi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. It appears that N.A. order was issued on 18th February, 2009 for area 28058.34 sq.meters, revised N.A. area order of 35532 sq.meters issued on 26/11/2010, Certificate from MPCB was issued on 1st July, 2011. Letter issued by Collector to Sub-Divisional Office dated 14/12/2011, Environment Clearance Certificate was issued on 23/01/2012, NOC from Collector Office for FSI issued on 23rd April, 2012, Structural Stability Certificate issued dated 22nd October, 2012, 'Consent to Establish', 'Consent to Operate' from MPCB issued on 27th August, 2013, Partial Occupancy Certificate issued on 3rd July, 2014. The present complaint came to be filed in the year 2013. In spite of receiving partial occupancy certificate the opponents did not ask the complainant to take possession of the Said Residential Unit. The complainant has also established that the amenities mentioned in the agreement were not provided to the flat purchasers. According to agreement the opponents had agreed to provide one covered car parking along with amenities like pipe gas for all apartments, row houses, twin bungalows, garbage chutes, water treatment plant, rain water harvesting, shopping complex, play area for children, one passenger lift and one service lift, religious hall, club house, two tennis courts, two basketball courts, one badminton court, swimming pool for adult and children, kids sitting area, party garden, multipurpose rooms with cards table, dining facilities, private theatre, gym, table tennis and pool table, one squash court, open parking for visitor, fencing for row houses and twin bungalows, open garden and pay area etc. Common amenities.
14CC/13/478 (15) It is established on record that the complainant paid more than 90% of the consideration. It is also brought on record by the complainant that the complainant had requested opponent at multiple times for providing relevant papers required for processing Bank Loan. Hence, it was resulted in delay in sanction of loan and caused additional financial burden on the complainant.
(16) The opponents have filed affidavit of evidence of Vijay Tukaram Raundal wherein he has mentioned several defenses for not handing over possession of the flat to the complainant. It is affirmed by the witness of the opponents as well as in the written version that the flat was ready, but, due to certain statutory compliance the possession was not handed over to the complainant. So, it can be said that the opponents agreed to handover possession of the flat as per the contents of the agreement but due to certain defects the possession could not be handed over as per the agreement. It is also admitted that the complainant has paid the amount of consideration as per the demand made. It is to be noted here that the opponents finalised the layout and building plan and it was submitted to the Town Planning Department for sanction. Accordingly the authority has sanctioned it on 18/02/2009. As per the submissions of the opponents they started development work accordingly. Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the opponents and the Society. It was agreed to give possession within eighteen months from 15/04/2008. The main grievance of the opponents is that the society started certain dispute regarding sanction of revised construction plan. The revised plan was absolutely as per the Development Control Rules and in consonance with the provisions of Section 7 and 7A of the MOFA. It is submission of opponents in the written version to show that the plan 15 CC/13/478 was revised twice. The N.A. order shows that while sanctioning any N.A. Premises certain conditions were must. It is mandatory that the opponent no.3 - M/s.Suyojit Infrastructure Ltd. to obtain certificate from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. It is proved that the opponent has obtained NOC from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board which is dated 01/07/2011. The consent was granted by Maharashtra Pollution Board by letter dated 01/07/2011. It shows from record that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board issued certificate in the year 2011 and 2013. The Environment Clearance Certificate issued by the Government is on record dated 23/01/2012. It is not mentioned in the written version as to when opponent applied for getting clearance certificate and when clearance certificate was obtained from the Environment Department. The original plan was finalized by the Town Planning department as per Government notification dated 14/12/2011. The Collector issued his no objection certificate on 23/04/2012. Partial occupancy certificate was issued on 03/07/2014. At that time project was ready. In spite of this fact the opponents failed to handover possession of the flat to the complainant.
(17) It is the case of the opponents that the service tax has been made applicable by Government of Maharashtra to all payments made after 01/07/2010. The opponents have demanded amount of service tax from the complainant vide demand letter dated 16/01/2014. By demand letter the complainant has not paid service tax, amount of VAT, MSEB charges, interest on delayed payment, maintenance amount and balance amount of consideration. Therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the taxes and legal dues. The complainant is member of the Aarohi Co-operative Housing Society. The opponents have executed independent agreement with the 16 CC/13/478 complainant. It is established on record that the opponents have settled the dispute with most of the members and handed over possession of their respective flats. In written version the opponents have contended that they are and they were ready to handover possession of the booked flat to the complainant. In spite of assurance and promise there is inordinate delay in handing over possession of the flat to the complainant and other purchasers which amounts to deficiency in service. Even after getting completion certificate the possession is not handed over by the opponents to the complainant.
(18) More than 90% of the amount of consideration was paid by the complainant to the opponents. He did not get possession of his dream flat. Certainly, he might be required to stay in the tenanted premises. It is true that the builder can change the plan, but at that time, he has to follow all provisions of Section 7A of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. At the time of change of plan, written consent of complainant was not obtained. It was for the opponents to effect changes with prior consent and knowledge of the complainant. Change in building plan without knowledge of the complainant is deficiency in service.
(19) On going through the agreement it reflects that the complainant is liable to pay VAT. The VAT is made applicable by the Government since 01/07/2010. Evidence and the documents filed by the opponents show that most of the payments of the flat consideration were done by the complainant before 01/07/2010. The complainant is liable to pay VAT on the amount paid on 01/07/2010 or subsequent to 01/07/2010. The complainant is liable to pay Service Tax. The complainant was and is ready to pay VAT 17 CC/13/478 and Service Tax as per law. The complainant was ready to pay the balance amount of consideration to the opponents as per the agreement. The delivery of possession was delayed by the opponents. The complainant himself was requesting for possession of the flat. If the opponents would have completed the construction and handed over possession of the flat to the complainant on or before 30/07/2010 then the complainant should not have required to pay more amount towards rent. Because of acts of the opponents, complainant has suffered mental pain and agony. He is required to stay in rental premises and has to pay rent. Certainly, he is entitled for compensation due to deficiency in service by the opponents.
(20) Complainant is entitled for possession of booked flat No.E-301, 3rd Floor in "E" Building admeasuring saleable built up area of 1433.8 sq.feet with covered car parking No.E-301 complete in all aspects and amenities as per the Second Schedule and Annexure G of Registered Agreement for Sale dated 02/04/2009. The complainant is liable to pay balance amount of consideration. He is also liable to pay service tax, Electricity Charges as per agreement. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical harassment due to delay in handing over possession of the booked flat, for illegal termination of agreement, for changes made by the opponents in building plan without consent of the complainant. The complainant has also suffered loss as he did not receive possession of his dream house and require to stay in rented house and required to pay loan installments which he has obtained from the Bank. He has paid EMI of loan with interest. He is constrained to file legal complaint due to attitude of the opponents. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following order:
18CC/13/478 ORDER
1. Consumer complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the opponents are guilty of deficiency in service.
3. Upon balance payment, opponents are jointly and severally directed to hand over possession of flat No.E-301, 3rd Floor in "E" Building admeasuring saleable built up area of 1433.8 sq.feet with covered car parking No.E-301 at Survey No.123/1, 123/2, 123/3/1, 123/3/2, 123/3/4 situated at Village Sus, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, with all amenities and facilities as mentioned in the agreement to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of above mentioned payment from the complainant.
4. The complainant is hereby directed to pay to the opponents amount of Rs.1,39,799/- towards balance consideration of flat, to pay amount towards Service Tax of Rs.23,024/-, VAT of Rs.68,107/-
Extra work of Rs.2,281/-, MSEB charges of Rs.50,000/- and maintenance charges within thirty days from the date of this order.
5. Opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony to the complainant within thirty days from the date of this order, otherwise amount will carry interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of this order till realization of entire amount.
6. Opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant interest @10% per annum on amount of Rs.25,84,421/- (the amount received by them from the complainant) from 30/07/2010 till handing over possession of the flat.
19CC/13/478
7. Opponents jointly and severally directed to pay amount of Rs.50,000/- towards costs of this litigation to the complainant and shall bear their own costs.
8. However, opponents are at liberty to appropriate the amounts payable to the complainant towards compensation and costs of litigation, in pursuance of foregoing order, from the amount receivable from the complainant towards consideration, as per foregoing order, and accordingly, inform to the complainant.
9. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 15th February, 2023.
[Justice S.P. Tavade] President [S.T. Barne] Judicial Member emp 20