State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Shahrukh Keki Anklesaria vs M/S Shubham Builders And Developer on 16 August, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Consumer Complaint No.CC/14/335
1.Mrs.Hufrish Karl Dadrevala
2.Mr.Karl Jimmy Dadrevala
Both R/o.903/904, Building no.13
Indra Darshan-2, Off Link Road
Oshiwara, Andheri (West)
Mumbai 400 053 .....Complainants
Versus
1.M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
At D-1, 4th floor, Renuka Chambers
Opp.Crossword, J.M.Road
Shivaji Nagar, Pune 411 004
2.Mr.Anant Dilip Pandit
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.Flat no.5, Building no.4
Star Apartment, Bund Garden Road
Pune 411 001
3. Mr.Prakash C.Rakhyani
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.Flat no.603, A wing
6th floor, Waghere Park
Near Kirti Hospital
Pimpri, Pune 411 017
4. Mr.Rahul B.Kadam
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.A-3/201, Karishma
Near Sangam Press, Kothrud
Pune 411 029
5.Mr.Ramesh S.Shrimanwar
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.C/903, 10, Kastur Kunj
ICS Colony, Bhosale Nagar
Pune 411 005
6. Mr.Laxman M.Mudkhede
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
1
R/o.77, Vivek Nagar
Nanded 431 605 ........Opponents
Consumer Complaint No.CC/14/336
1.Mrs.Lata Paramanand Desai
2.Mr. Paramanand B. Desai
Both R/o.23/24, White Lily
6th Floor, Babrekar Marg
Mumbai 400 028 .....Complainants
Versus
1.M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
At D-1, 4th floor, Renuka Chambers
Opp.Crossword, J.M.Road
Shivaji Nagar, Pune 411 004
2.Mr.Anant Dilip Pandit
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.Flat no.5, Building no.4
Star Apartment, Bund Garden Road
Pune 411 001
3. Mr.Prakash C. Rakhyani
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.Flat no.603, A wing
6th floor, Waghere Park
Near Kirti Hospital
Pimpri, Pune 411 017
4. Mr.Rahul B.Kadam
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.A-3/201, Karishma
Near Sangam Press, Kothrud
Pune 411 029
5.Mr.Ramesh S.Shrimanwar
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.C/903, 10, Kastur Kunj
ICS Colony, Bhosale Nagar
Pune 411 005
6. Mr.Laxman M.Mudkhede
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.77, Vivek Nagar
Nanded 431 605 ........Opponents
2
Consumer Complaint No.CC/14/337
1.Mr.Shahrukh Keki Anklesaria
2.Mrs.Sanober Shahrukh Anklesaria
Both R/o.B-16, Ginwala Building
Captain Colony, Tardeo
Mumbai 400 034 .....Complainants
Versus
1.M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
At D-1, 4th floor, Renuka Chambers
Opp.Crossword, J.M.Road
Shivaji Nagar, Pune 411 004
2.Mr.Anant Dilip Pandit
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.Flat no.5, Building no.4
Star Apartment, Bund Garden Road
Pune 411 001
3. Mr.Prakash C.Rakhyani
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.Flat no.603, A wing
6th floor, Waghere Park
Near Kirti Hospital
Pimpri, Pune 411 017
4. Mr.Rahul B.Kadam
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.A-3/201, Karishma
Near Sangam Press, Kothrud
Pune 411 029
5.Mr.Ramesh S.Shrimanwar
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.C/903, 10, Kastur Kunj
ICS Colony, Bhosale Nagar
Pune 411 005
6. Mr.Laxman M.Mudkhede
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.77, Vivek Nagar
Nanded 431 605 ........Opponents
3
Consumer Complaint No.CC/14/338
1.Mrs.Rajul Mahesh Pardiwala
2.Mr. Mahesh K. Pardiwala
Both R/o.Nalanda "A", Block no.13
3rd floor, 62nd Peddar Road
Mumbai 400 026 .....Complainants
Versus
1.M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
At D-1, 4th floor, Renuka Chambers
Opp.Crossword, J.M.Road
Shivaji Nagar, Pune 411 004
2.Mr.Anant Dilip Pandit
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.Flat no.5, Building no.4
Star Apartment, Bund Garden Road
Pune 411 001
3. Mr.Prakash C.Rakhyani
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.Flat no.603, A wing
6th floor, Waghere Park
Near Kirti Hospital
Pimpri, Pune 411 017
4. Mr.Rahul B.Kadam
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.A-3/201, Karishma
Near Sangam Press, Kothrud
Pune 411 029
5.Mr.Ramesh S.Shrimanwar
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.C/903, 10, Kastur Kunj
ICS Colony, Bhosale Nagar
Pune 411 005
6. Mr.Laxman M.Mudkhede
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.77, Vivek Nagar
Nanded 431 605 ........Opponents
4
Consumer Complaint No.CC/14/358
1.Mr.Arjun Kashinath Khadapkar
2.Mrs.Nayan Arjun Khadapkar
Both R/o.02/1,Ornate House
310, Veer Savarkar Marg
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 .....Complainants
Versus
1.M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
At D-1, 4th floor, Renuka Chambers
Opp.Crossword, J.M.Road
Shivaji Nagar, Pune 411 004
2.Mr.Anant Dilip Pandit
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.Flat no.5, Building no.4
Star Apartment, Bund Garden Road
Pune 411 001
3. Mr.Prakash C.Rakhyani
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.Flat no.603, A wing
6th floor, Waghere Park
Near Kirti Hospital
Pimpri, Pune 411 017
4. Mr.Rahul B.Kadam
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.A-3/201, Karishma
Near Sangam Press, Kothrud
Pune 411 029
5.Mr.Ramesh S.Shrimanwar
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.C/903, 10, Kastur Kunj
ICS Colony, Bhosale Nagar
Pune 411 005
6. Mr.Laxman M.Mudkhede
Partner of M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers
R/o.77, Vivek Nagar
Nanded 431 605 ........Opponents
5
BEFORE: Smt.Usha S.Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member
A.K.Zade, Member
PRESENT: Mr.Ajay Nandgaonkar-Advocate for complainants
Mr.Girish Shedge-Advocate for opponent nos.4 to 6
COMMON ORDER
Per Hon'ble Smt.Usha S.Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member
1. All above consumer complaints are filed against M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers and partners by alleging deficiency in service. Reliefs claimed by the complainants are of same nature based on identical facts. Common issues are involved in all the cases. Hence, all consumer complaints are decided by common judgment.
2. Consumer complaint bearing no.CC/14/335 is filed by complainant- Mrs.Hufrish Karl Dadrevala and her husband-Mr.Karl Jimmy Dadrevala for direction to the opponents to remove deficiency in service, to direct the opponents to complete the project and give common amenities, to direct to give Possession Certificate, Completion certificate, Occupation certificate, to hand over the electricity meter, water meter along with relevant documents, to complete the entire project as agreed in the Agreement of Sale, to pay back escalation costs of Rs.3,20,000/-, to pay cost of construction of incomplete work amounting to Rs.2 lakhs. The complainants have also claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for default, monetary loss, financial and mental agony. Alternatively, the complainants have claimed refund of cost of unit/ bungalow as per present market valuation along with escalation costs, cost of incomplete work and compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.
According to complainants they are law abiding citizens. Opponent no.1 is a registered partnership firm bearing registration no.MPA-65097 dated 15/03/2007 and Registration no.MPA-74159 dated 02/09/2009.
6Opponent nos.2 to 6 are the partners of the said firm and are the developers and promoters of bungalow/building/row house project named "SERENE COUNTY" on a plot of land bearing Gat no.113/2 admeasuring about 4 Hectares lying being and situated at village Varsoli, Taluka Maval, District Pune. The opponents have got the building plans and layout sanctioned from the concerned Town Planning Authorities and started the project in or about 2007. They have constructed various twin bungalows and other premises to be sold to prospective purchasers for a monetary consideration.
The complainants were very much fascinated by the said project and after going through all the details of amenities and structures, which were promised to be provided, the purchasers/ complainants thought it a good proposal as they wanted to have a Holiday home nearby to Mumbai. They approached the opponents. The opponents gave a rosy picture of the project. The opponents assured the complainants that they would certainly use the best material and would give best amenities. Absolutely there would be no dispute and problem regarding the construction. Believing on representations of the opponents, the complainants agreed to purchase Row House bearing no.33-II having an area of 1920.89 sq.ft. i.e.178.45 sq.mtrs. on a plot bearing no.33 with surrounding half area of the plot admeasuring 277.5 sq.mtrs. and space on the north side for a consideration of Rs.55 lakhs. An Agreement of Sale was executed on 26/03/2008 and it was registered on 29/03/2008. The opponents were to complete the entire project with all the amenities including the common amenities of the whole project within 36 months from the date of Agreement for Sale as promised.
It is further submitted that the opponents gave possession of said unit to the complainants on 10/01/2010 without possession letter after taking Rs.76,000/- for three years maintenance, Rs.85,000/- for electricity connection and Rs.2 lakhs towards Club Membership. Without completing the work, the opponents have collected the amount illegally. Opponent 7 nos.2 & 3 have admitted at the time of handing over the possession that there are certain works like inferior painting, access road, garden plantation and other issues, which they would take care of immediately, but till today nothing has been done. The common amenities including the layout road, approach road and beautification including all the amenities as mentioned in Schedule-V of the said agreement have not been completed till today by the opponents. It is alleged that the opponents asked complainants to get the necessary things completed on their own and the opponents would reimburse the complainants immediately and so the complainants spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and, accordingly, informed to the opponents. The opponents have not reimbursed the spent amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainants are not in a position to go and stay and enjoy the bungalow which they have purchased from the opponents by paying all the sale consideration as no common facilities as agreed to be provided by the opponents have been completed. The complainants required to take their own electricity and water connection as they had to make the said unit livable. Several correspondences was made on e-mail to the opponents from the year 2009 stating the deficiency in service and other shortcomings to which the opponents did not reply and also did not complete the incomplete work. Ultimately, legal notice was sent to the opponents through Advocate Mr.Ajay Nandgavkar dated 29/04/2014, which was falsely replied by opponent no.3. The complainants sought the services of the Government approved Valuer and Architect Mr.Vineet O. Agarwal, who has given his detailed valuation report dated 21/07/2014. Valuation of work of all the amenities comes to around Rs.2,28,93,000/-. The total number of unit holders is 22 and each member/unit holder/purchaser has a share of incomplete work of amenities to the tune of Rs.10,40,590/-. Apart from total cost of the unit, the opponents have taken an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- as an extra amount, which is beyond the agreed cost. Said amount was paid by the complainants to the Association formed by all the unit purchasers of 8 the said project who paid amount to one of the partners Shri Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam as per the instructions of all the other partners of the opponent firm. Ultimately, the complainants have filed consumer complaint by alleging deficiency in service.
3. Consumer complaint bearing no.CC/14/336 is filed by complainant- Mrs.Lata Paramanand Desai and her husband Mr.Paramanand B. Desai by alleging deficiency in service against the opponents. The complainants are consumers. The opponent no.1 is a registered partnership firm. Opponent nos.2 to 6 are the partners of the said firm and are the developers and promoters of bungalow/building/row house project by name "SERENE COUNTY" on a plot of land bearing Gat no.113/2 admeasuring about 4 Hectares lying and situated at village Varsoli, Taluka Maval, District Pune. The opponents have got the building plans and layout sanctioned from the concerned Town Planning Authorities and started the project in or about 2007 and have constructed various twin bungalows and other premises to be sold to prospective purchasers for a monetary consideration. The complainants were very much fascinated by the said project and after going through all the details of amenities and structures, which were promised to be provide, the purchasers/ complainants thought it a good proposal as they wanted to have a Holiday home nearby to Mumbai. They approached the opponents. The opponents gave a rosy picture of the project. The opponents assured the complainants that they would certainly use the best of material and would give best amenities. Absolutely there would be no dispute and problem regarding the construction. Believing on representations of the opponents, the complainants agreed to purchase Row House bearing no.30- II having an area of 1920 sq.ft. i.e.178.37 sq.mtrs. on a plot bearing no.30 with surrounding half area of the plot admeasuring 277.5 sq.mtrs. space on the north side for a consideration of Rs.50 lakhs. Parties entered into an agreement. An Agreement for Sale was executed on 01/12/2009 and it was registered. The opponents were to complete the project entirely with all 9 amenities within 36 months from the date of Agreement for Sale. The opponents gave possession of the said unit to the complainants on 16/03/2010, after taking Rs.2,55,000/- which included an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards maintenance for three years, an amount of Rs.50,000/- for additional work, which was never been fully and effectually done. Without completing the work, the opponents have illegally collected the amount.
It is alleged that Opponent nos.2 & 3 admitted at the time of handing over possession that there are certain works like inferior painting, access road, garden plantation and other issues, which they would take care of immediately, but till today nothing has been done. The common amenities including the layout road, approach road and beautification including all the amenities as mentioned in Schedule-V of the said agreement have not been completed till today by the opponents. It is alleged that the opponents asked complainants to get the necessary things completed on their own and the opponents would reimburse the complainants immediately and so the complainants spent an amount of Rs.2,73,700/- and, accordingly, informed to the opponents. The opponents have not reimbursed the spent amount of Rs.2,73,700/-. The complainants state that they cannot enjoy the house as common facilities are not completed or provided yet as agreed to be provided by the opponents. The complainants were required to take their own electricity and water connection as they had to make the said unit habitable. The complainants got NOC from Gram Panchayat and have also paid their charges. Ultimately, complainants sent legal notice to the opponents through Advocate Mr.Ajay Nandgavkar dated 29/04/2014. The notice was duly served to the opponents. Only opponent no.3 replied the notice and denied the claim. The complainants thereafter sought the services of the Government approved Valuer and Architect Mr.Vineet O. Agarwal, who has given his detailed valuation report dated 11/08/2014. It shows the detailed description and cost of the work completed with own 10 funds by the complainants which was Rs.2,73,700/-. The incomplete work or substandard work to be repaired and yet to be done is of Rs.3,12,000/-.
The valuation of work of all the common amenities comes to around Rs.2,28,93,000/-. The total number of unit holders is 22 and each member/unit holder/purchaser has a share of incomplete work of amenities to the tune of Rs.10,40,590/-. Apart from total cost of the unit, the opponents have taken an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- as an extra amount, which is beyond the agreed cost. Said amount was paid by the complainants to the Association formed by all the unit purchasers of the said project and paid to one of the partners Shri Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam as per the instructions of all the other partners of the opponent firm. Ultimately, the complainants have filed consumer complaint by alleging deficiency in service against the opponents.
4. Consumer complaint bearing no.CC/14/337 is filed by complainant- Mr.Shahrukh Keki Anklesaria and his wife Mrs.Sanober Shahrukh Anklesaria by alleging deficiency in service against the opponents. The complainants are consumers. The opponent no.1 is a registered partnership firm. Opponent nos.2 to 6 are the partners of the said firm and are the developers and promoters of bungalow/building/row house project by name "SERENE COUNTY" on a plot of land bearing Gat no.113/2 admeasuring about 4 Hectares lying and situated at village Varsoli, Taluka Maval, District Pune. The opponents have got the building plans and layout sanctioned from the concerned Town Planning Authorities and started the project in or about 2007. They have constructed various twin bungalows and developed other premises to be sold to prospective purchasers for a monetary consideration. The complainants were very much fascinated by the said project and after going through all the details of amenities and structures, which were promised to be provided, the purchasers/ complainants thought it a good proposal as they wanted to have a Holiday 11 home nearby to Mumbai. They approached the opponents. The opponents gave a rosy picture of the project. The opponents assured the complainants that they would certainly use the best of material and would give best amenities. Absolutely there would be no dispute and problem regarding the construction. Believing on representations of the opponents, the complainants agreed to purchase Row House bearing no.40-2 having an area of 1561.97 sq.ft. (built up) along with undivided 1/12 share in plot nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 with surrounding space of about 240.66 sq.mtrs. for total consideration of Rs.38,01,524/-. Parties entered into an Agreement for Sale. An Agreement for Sale was executed on 14/10/2010 and it was registered on 27/10/2010. The opponents were to complete the project entirely with all amenities within two years from the date of Agreement for Sale. Till today the opponents have not given possession of said unit to the complainants even after paying more than 80% of the sale. The said unit is in a very dilapidated condition and has a market value of just Rs.75,000/-. Without work done or completed, the opponents have collected the amount illegally. The project is no more in progress and the said unit is completely ruined. The common amenities including the layout road, approach road and beautification including all the amenities as mentioned in Schedule-V of the said agreement have not been completed till today by the opponents. The complainants called the opponents many times since 2011 and also met them on many occasion wherein the opponents just promised them the completion but did not do so and have not given the completed possession till today.
Ultimately, complainants sent legal notice to the opponents through Advocate Mr.Ajay Nandgavkar dated 02/05/2014, which was not claimed and refused by the opponents. The complainants thereafter sought the services of the Government approved Valuer and Architect Mr.Vineet O. Agarwal, who has given his detailed valuation report dated 10/07/2014, which shows the detailed value and description of the said unit. The 12 valuation of incomplete work of the said unit comes to around Rs.28,64,500/- and the cost of amenities is around Rs.10,40,590/-. Apart from total cost of the unit, the opponents have taken an amount of Rs.4,37,500/- as an extra amount, which is beyond the agreed cost. Said amount was paid by the complainants in the Association formed by all the unit purchasers of the said project and paid to one of the partners Shri Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam as per the instructions of all the other partners of the opponent firm. Ultimately, the complainants have filed consumer complaint by alleging deficiency in service against the opponents.
5. Consumer complaint bearing no.CC/14/338 is filed by complainant- Mrs.Rajul Mahesh Pardiwala and her husband Mr.Mahesh K.Pardiwala by alleging deficiency in service against the opponents. The complainants are consumers. The opponent no.1 is a registered partnership firm. Opponent nos.2 to 6 are the partners of the said firm and are the developers and promoters of bungalow/building/row house project by name "SERENE COUNTY" on a plot of land bearing Gat no.113/2 admeasuring totally about 4 Hectares lying and situated at village Varsoli, Taluka Maval, District Pune. The opponents have got the building plans and layout sanctioned from the concerned Town Planning Authorities and started the project in or about 2007 and have constructed various twin bungalows and other premises to be sold to prospective purchasers for a monetary consideration. The complainants were very much fascinated by the said project and after going through all the details of amenities and structures, which were promised to be provided, the purchasers/ complainants thought it a good proposal as they wanted to have a Holiday home nearby to Mumbai. They approached the opponents. The opponents gave a rosy picture of the project. The opponents assured the complainants that they would certainly use the best of material and would give best amenities. Absolutely there would be no dispute and problem regarding the construction. Believing on representations of the opponents, the 13 complainants agreed to purchase Twin Type Bungalow bearing no.29 (II) having an area of 1920 sq.ft. (carpet) on half portion of Plot no.29 along with surrounding space of 277.5 sq.mtrs. for total consideration of Rs.55 lakhs. Parties entered into an Agreement for Sale. An Agreement for Sale was executed on 02/05/2009 and it was registered. The opponents were to complete the project entirely with all amenities within two years from the date of Agreement for Sale. Till today the opponents have not given possession of said unit to the complainants even after paying more than 85% of the sale consideration. The said unit is in a very dilapidated condition and its replacement cost comes to around Rs.11,52,000/-. Without work done or completed, the opponents have collected the amount illegally. The project is no more in progress and the said unit is completely ruined. The common amenities including the layout road, approach road and beautification including all the amenities as mentioned in Schedule-V of the said agreement have not been completed till today by the opponents. The complainants called the opponents many times since 2011 and also met them on many occasion wherein the opponents just promised them the completion but did not do so and have not given possession of unit till today.
Ultimately, complainants sent legal notice to the opponents through Advocate Mr.Ajay Nandgavkar dated 02/05/2014, which was not claimed and refused by the opponents. The complainants thereafter sought the services of the Government approved Valuer and Architect Mr.Vineet O. Agarwal, who has given his detailed valuation report dated 21/07/2014, which shows the detailed value and description of the said unit. The valuation of incomplete work of the said unit comes to around Rs.11,52,000/- and the cost of amenities is around Rs.10,40,590/-. Apart from total cost of the unit, the opponents have taken an amount of Rs.6,40,000/- as an extra amount, which is beyond the agreed cost. Said amount was paid by the complainants in the Association formed by all the 14 unit purchasers of the said project and paid to one of the partners Shri Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam as per the instructions of all the other partners of the opponent firm. Ultimately, the complainants have filed consumer complaint by alleging deficiency in service against the opponents.
5. Consumer complaint bearing no.CC/14/358 is filed by complainant- Mr.Arjun Kashinath Khadapkar and his wife Mrs.Nayan Arjun Khadapkar by alleging deficiency in service against the opponents. The complainants are consumers. The opponent no.1 is a registered partnership firm. Opponent nos.2 to 6 are the partners of the said firm and are the developers and promoters of bungalow/building/row house project by name "SERENE COUNTY" on a plot of land bearing Gat no.113/2 admeasuring totally about 4 Hectares lying being and situated at village Varsoli, Taluka Maval, District Pune. The opponents have got the building plans and layout sanctioned from the concerned Town Planning Authorities and started the project in or about 2007 and have constructed various twin bungalows and other premises to be sold to prospective purchasers for a monetary consideration. The complainants were very much fascinated by the said project and after going through all the details of amenities and structures, which were promised to be provided, the purchasers/ complainants thought it a good proposal as they wanted to have a Holiday home nearby to Mumbai. They approached the opponents. The opponents gave a rosy picture of the project. The opponents assured the complainants that they would certainly use the best of material and would give best amenities. Absolutely there would be no dispute and problem regarding the construction. Believing on representations of the opponents, the complainants agreed to purchase Twin Type Bungalow bearing no.36 (I) having an area of 1920 sq.ft. i.e. 178.37 sq.mtrs. on a Plot bearing no.36 and (having area of 555 sq.mtrs. ) with surrounding half area of the plot admeasuring 277.5 sq.mtrs. on the North side for total consideration of Rs.49,53,268/-. Parties entered into an Agreement for Sale. An Agreement 15 for Sale was executed on 23/12/2008 and registered on 23/12/2008. The opponents were to complete the project entirely with all amenities within 36 months from the date of Agreement for Sale.
It is further submitted that the opponents gave possession of said unit to the complainants on 29/06/2010 after taking Rs.75,000/- for three years maintenance, electricity connection and Rs.2,50,000/- towards Club Membership. Without completing the work, the opponents have collected the amount illegally. Opponent nos.2 & 3 have admitted at the time of handing over the possession that there are certain works like inferior painting, access road, garden plantation and other issues, which they would take care of immediately, but till today nothing has been done. The common amenities including the layout road, approach road and beautification including all the amenities as mentioned in Schedule-V of the said agreement have not been completed till today by the opponents. It is alleged that the opponents asked complainants to get the necessary things completed on their own and the opponents would reimburse the complainants immediately and so the complainants spent an amount of Rs.9,94,000/- and, accordingly, informed to the opponents. The opponents have not reimbursed the spent amount of Rs.9,94,000/-. The complainants state that they cannot enjoy the common facilities which are not completed or provided yet as agreed to be provided by the opponents. The complainants were required to take their own electricity and water connection as they had to make the said unit habitable. The complainants got the NOC from the Gram Panchayat and have also paid their charges. Ultimately, complainants sent legal notice to the opponents through Advocate Mr.Ajay Nandgavkar dated 29/04/2014. The notice was duly served to the opponents. Opponent no.3 replied the notice and denied the claim. The opponent nos.4, 5 & 6 replied on 30/08/2014 and denied the claim. The complainants sought the services of the Government approved Valuer and Architect Mr.Vineet O. Agarwal, who has given his detailed 16 valuation report dated 31/07/2014. Valuation of work of all the amenities comes to around Rs.2,28,93,000/-. The total number of unit holders is 22 and each member/unit holder/purchaser has a share of incomplete work of amenities to the tune of Rs.10,40,500/-. Apart from total cost of the unit, the opponents have taken an amount of Rs.6,40,000/- as an extra amount, which is beyond the agreed cost. Said amount was paid by the complainants in the Association formed by all the unit purchasers of the said project and paid to one of the partners Shri Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam as per the instructions of all the other partners of the opponent firm. Ultimately, the complainants have filed consumer complaint by alleging deficiency in service.
6. By filing consumer complaints, complainants have requested to direct the opponents to remove the deficiency of service, and to provide:-
i) MSEB transformer to be provided to entire facility
ii) 3 Phase MSEB meter for the said unit/bungalow
iii) Municipal Water Supply line of required capacity
iv) Distribution network with appropriate pumps for supply of water to unit/ bungalow.
v) Complete RCC boundary wall of appropriate height with barbed wire fencing on top.
vi) Fencing for unit/bungalow
vii) Gate with Guard cabin The opponents jointly or severally may be ordered to complete all the common amenities as mentioned in Schedule-V of the agreement for sale, which are as under:-
i) Play Park for children
ii) Party Lawn with hedge fencing and plants.
iii) Concrete Internal Roads of appropriate width
iv) Intercom facility for unit/bungalows and to all amenity locations as well as guard cabins.17
v) Street Lights on all internal roads
vi) Servants/Drivers quarters
vii) CCTV for the entire facility Opponents may be directed to give Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate.
7. Only opponent no.4-Mr.Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam, opponent no.5- Mr.Ramesh Shankarrao Shrimanwar and opponent no.6- Mr.Laxman Motiram Mudkhede have resisted the claim by filing written statements. Consumer complaint bearing nos.CC/14/335, CC/14/336, CC/14/337, CC/14/338 & CC/14/358 are proceeded ex-parte against opponent no.1 and without written version of opponent nos.2&3. The order is dated 06/05/2006.
8. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 have filed written version separately in each complaint. However, line of defence and submissions are common in all complaints on behalf of opponent Nos.4 to 6. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 have by filing written version denied all adverse allegations. It is specifically denied that Opponent Nos.4 to 6 are guilty of deficiency in service. It is denied that the opponents gave possession of respective units to the complainants on 10/01/2010 after taking three years maintenance, charges of electricity connection and club membership. It is submitted that the opponents have not collected any amount from the complainants and therefore there is no question of collecting amount illegally. These opponents are not aware as to whether opponent Nos.2 and 3 have admitted that certain work like inferior painting, access road, garden plantation and other issues would be taken care immediately. It is denied that the complainants/claimants by several e- mails called upon the opponents since year 2009 and also met them on many occasions when opponents promised for completion of the units. However, it is admitted that the complainants sent notice dated 29/04/2014 through Advocate Shri.Ajay Nandgaonkar. These opponents have sent 18 reply to said notice on 30/08/2014. Reference of the same is not made deliberately. These opponents are unaware as to whether complainants have sought services of Government approved valuer and architect Mr.Vinit Agarwal who has given Valuation Report dated 21/07/2014. The claim of complainants is false and vexatious.
9. It is submitted that the complainants are well aware of the dispute between these opponents and opponent Nos.1 to 3. They are also aware about the prohibitory order passed by the District Court, Pune. Complainants are well aware why the project is stalled and how the fraud has been played by opponent Nos.2 and 3 against these opponents. Under these circumstances the complainants had no cause of action for filing present complaints against present opponents and therefore the complaints are liable to be dismissed with costs. Complainants have deliberately suppressed material facts. Opponent Nos.2 to 6 have formed Partnership Firm under the name and style of "Shubham Builders and Developers"
which is registered partnership firm. Said Partnership Firm acquired development rights of plot Nos.21 to 25 and 27 to 43 totally admeasuring 12622.75 sq.mtrs carved out of sanctioned layout of survey No.113/2 totally admeasuring 04 H. 00 R situated at village Varsoli, Tal.Maval, Dist.Pune. Opponents have invested entire amount for acquiring development rights of the said property as well as for commencing the work of the development including sanction of the building plan etc. As per the conditions of Partnership Deed Shri.Rahul Kadam and Shri.Anant Pandit were authorized to operate bank accounts. Said Partnership Firm entered into some Agreements to Sell and thereby agreed to sell some units to the respective purchasers on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. At the time of formation of the said partnership firm and at the time of entering into the above mentioned agreements, these opponents have decided to float ownership scheme of the bungalows, row houses, twin bungalows etc. in a luxury manner and these opponents have taken all care while commencing 19 the said work on the site. Opponents have opened account in Axis Bank, Jangli Maharaj Road Branch, Pune and Canara Bank, Jangli Maharaj Road Branch, Pune in the name of Partnership Firm. Said accounts were operated by Opponent Shri.Rahul Kadam and Shri.Anant Pandit. However, Shri.Anant Pandit subsequently refused to give accounts of the firm and therefore opponent Shri.Rahul Kadam has stopped signing cheques and thereafter the dispute arose between these opponents and Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani.
10. It is alleged that Shri.Anant Dilip Pandit and Shri.Prakash Chouthram Rakhyani made collusion with each other and have illegally formed another partnership firm on 17/03/2009 in the name and style of "Shubham Builders". Both of them have deliberately adopted the name of earlier partnership firm and opened a separate bank account in ICICI Bank showing therein that Anant Pandit and Prakash Rakhyani are the only partners of the said firm and started accepting further consideration of the units from the respective unit holders. These opponents also came to know that Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani by taking undue advantage of formation of illegal partnership firm started dealing with other units with the prospective purchasers and entered into some agreements with the purchasers and sale proceeds of the said units have been deposited in new account and withdrawn the same and used for their own purposes. Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani have hijacked business of the original partnership firm. Shri.Anant Pandit filed Misc.Application No.746 of 2010 before the District Court, Pune under section 9 of the Arbitration Act for seeking prohibitory orders against these opponents. Misc. Application is filed on the basis of concocted story that Shri.Prakash Rakhyani issued notice dated 17/03/2009 and dissolved partnership firm and came with false case that Shri.Anant Pandit issued letter dated 25/03/2009 and requested all the partners to come for amicable settlement, failing which Anant Pandit and Prakash Rakhyani will continue to complete 20 project individually in the same name. Alleged notice as well as letter were not issued to these opponents. These opponents came to know that opponent Nos.2 and 3 formed another partnership firm in the name and style of "Shubham Builders and Developers" wherein both of them are only partners. They have admitted in the said petition that they have entered into some agreements under their signatures. After getting knowledge of the said fact, these opponents issued Public Notice on 28/09/2010 in Daily Times of India through Advocate and informed public at large that opponent Nos.2 and 3 have played fraud upon these opponents and are trying to create third party interest and further requested public at large not to enter into any transaction with opponent Nos.2 and 3. Moreover, these opponents filed another Misc.Application No.801 of 2010 before the District Court, Pune. District Court, Pune was pleased to reject application for temporary injunction filed by Anant Pandit as Misc.Appln.No.746 of 2010. District Court, Pune was pleased to allow application of these opponents filed as Misc.Appln.No.801 of 2010 and thereby restrained Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani from operating bank accounts of the partnership firm, carrying out any development on the site and creating third party interest in the suit property. This order is not challenged by Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani.
11. It is further alleged that Shri.Anant Pandit had filed Arbitration Petition No.43 of 2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay for appointment of sole arbitrator as per the terms and conditions of the partnership deed. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 gave no objection for appointment of the Arbitrator and referring the dispute to the Arbitrator. Hon'ble High Court was pleased to appoint Shri.S.S.Banhatti as sole Arbitrator for dissolution of the partnership firm and settlement of the accounts of the firm. Arbitration proceeding is still pending. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 were always ready and willing to perform their part of agreement and were ready to complete the scheme and ready to handover possession of 21 units to the purchasers. However, Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani played fraud upon opponent Nos.4 to 6 and illegally formed separate partnership firm and sold out some units of the original partnership firm through newly formed illegal partnership firm. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 obtained prohibitory order from the District Court. Under such circumstances, even though opponent Nos.4 to 6 were ready and willing to complete the scheme, the said scheme could not be completed and possession of the units was not handed over to the complainants. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 by notice dated 01/11/2010 informed the complainants about the fraud played by Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani. However, complainants did not bother to send any reply to the said notice. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 thereafter again sent notice dated 20/12/2010 and informed the complainants that the District Court passed restraining order against opponent Nos.2 and 3 and copy of said order was also sent to the complainants. However, complainants did not bother to send reply to the notice. Complainants did not take any action since year 2010. In fact there was collusion between the complainants and opponent Nos.2 and 3. Opponent Shri.Prakash Rakhyani and Shri.Anant Pandit had no authority to give possession to the complainants.
12. According to the case made out by the Opponent Nos.2 and 3 in Arbitration Petition No.746 of 2010 the firm was dissolved on 13/03/2009 and therefore after dissolution of partnership firm without setting accounts of the partnership firm, opponent No.3 had no right to collect any amount from the complainants and to give possession to the complainants. In fact the complainants have not paid any amount to the opponent Nos.4 to 6 or original partnership firm and therefore these opponents being partners of the original firm are not liable to perform their part of the agreement unless and until arbitration proceedings are completed. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 have invested huge amount towards development of the said property. In fact Shri.Prakash Rakhyani and Shri.Anant Pandit have not invested any amount 22 in the said project and therefore these opponents have taken immediate steps for dissolution of the partnership firm and arbitration proceedings. Some of the unit purchasers approached these opponents and informed that they are going to settle the dispute with Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani and Shri.Raju Jaiswal and Shri.Bharat Jain are going to take over the business of the original partnership firm and they will pay off the amounts that may be due to these opponents. The responsibility of completing the said project in all respects and handing over possession of the units to the respective unit holders will be taken by them. At the time of meetings Shri.More, Shri.Suri and Shri.Bharat Jain informed these opponents that due to the order of the District Court and arbitration proceedings, various unit purchasers are suffering and depriving from their units and requested to co-operate them. Shri.Raju Jaiswal, Shri.Bharat Jain paid some amount to these opponents towards share of these opponents in the said partnership firm and it was agreed that Shri.Bharat Jain, Shri.Jaiswal, Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani will continue original partnership firm and all the responsibility of the said project will be taken by the said continuing partners and these opponents will retire from the said partnership firm. However, Shri.Bharat Jain and Shri.Jaiswal have not paid the entire agreed consideration and did not execute Deed of Retirement. These opponents even filed application for withdrawal of arbitration application No.801 of 2010. However, the proposed continuing partners did not execute Deed of Retirement and therefore these opponents had no alternative but to continue the said arbitration application No.801 of 2010.
13. It is submitted by the opponent Nos.4 to 6 that Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani are responsible for completing the project. These opponents have filed police complaint with Deccan Police station, however, the concerned police officers did not take cognizance of said complaint and therefore Shri.Ramesh Shrimanwar filed private complaint in the Court of 23 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune and the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune directed Deccan police station to lodge F.I.R. against Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani as per provisions of 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In pursuance of the said complaint both of them were arrested and released on bail. It is submitted that opponent Nos.2 and 3 failed to comply their responsibility and hence consumer complaints are liable to be dismissed against opponent Nos.4 to 6.
14. Opponent Nos.1 to 3 failed to file written version in spite of receipt of notice. Therefore, consumer complaints are proceeded without written version of opponent nos.1 to 3 by order dated 29/09/2015 and 01/10/2015.
15. On the pleadings of the parties following points arise for our determination and we have recorded our findings for the reasons below:-
Sr.No. Points Findings
1 Whether the consumer complaints are Yes
maintainable?
2 Whether the opponents are guilty of Yes
deficiency in service?
3 Whether direction can be given to the Yes
opponents to remove the deficiencies
as prayed?
4 Whether the complainants are entitled Yes
to claim possession certificate,
completion certificate and occupancy
certificate from the Opponents?
5 Whether the complainants are entitled Yes
for electricity meter, water meter
alongwith relevant documents?
6 Whether the complainants are entitled Yes
24
for refund of escalation cost,
compensation and cost of litigation as
claimed?
7 What order? As per final order
16. In Consumer Complaint No.335 of 2014 Shri.Karl Jimmy Dadrevala has led evidence by filing affidavit of evidence on behalf of both the complainants. Complainants have relied on agreement of sale dated 29/03/2008, No.8 extract dated 18/07/2012, receipt of payment by cheque dated 10/01/2010, notice issued by complainant dated 29/04/2014, reply of Opponent No.3 dated 16/05/2014, Valuation Report dated 21/07/2014 and Balance Sheet. Those documents are filed on record alongwith list dated 27/08/2014. Alongwith affidavit of evidence, complainants have filed bill issued by Jasdil Engineering Corporation dated 12/06/2014, Bank Statement, Balance Sheet and Agreement of Association of Persons.
17. To give counter blow, opponent Shri.Rahul Kadam led his evidence by filing affidavit. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 have relied on the documents which are mentioned in the list dated 14/09/2015. Following documents are relied-
1] Copy of Partnership Deed dated 05/12/2006
2] Copy of Reconstituted Partnership Deed dated 01/08/2007 of
Shubham Builders & Developers.
3] Copy of Deed of Partnership dated 17/03/2009 executed
between Shri.Prakash Rakhyani and Shri.Anant Pandit 4] Copy of Petition No.746 of 2010 filed in the Court of District Judge, Pune, 5] Copy of public notice issued by opponent Nos.4 to 6 in daily Times of India dated 02/10/2010 6] Copy of public notice reply issued by opponent Nos.2 and 3 in Times of India dated 08/10/2010 25 7] Copy of Arbitration Petition filed by Shri.Anant Pandit against opponent Nos.4 to 6 8] Copy of Misc.Appln.No.801 of 2010 filed by opponent No.4 in District Court, Pune.
9] Copy of reply to Misc.Appln.No.801 to 2010 filed by Shri.Anant Pandit 10] Copy of order dated 30/10/2010 in Misc.Appln.No.801 of 2010 11] Copy of legal notice dated 01/11/2010 issued by opponent Nos.4 to 6 to the complainants.
12] Copies of 2 acknowledgement receipts of said notice 13] Copy of legal notice dated 20/12/2010 issued by opponent No.4 to 6 to the complainants 14] Copies of acknowledgement receipts of said notice 15] Copy of notice reply dated 01/09/2014 issued by opponent Nos.4 to 6 to Gideon Associates and complainants 16] Copies of 3 acknowledgement receipts of said notice reply.
18. Opponent No.4 put interrogatories to the complainants on 06/05/2016. Interrogatories were also given to the opponent Nos.2 and 3. Complainant Shri.Karl Jimmy Dadrewala replied interrogatories on oath on 25/10/2016. Interrogatories were not replied by the opponent Nos.2 and 3. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 also relied on copy of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay in Arbitration Petition No.43 of 2010 dated 28/10/2010. Bank Account No.059505000058, is relied on.
19. In consumer complaint No.336 of 2014 complainant Smt.Lata P. Desai led her evidence by filing evidence affidavit and relied upon various documents.
To give counterblow Opponent Shri.Ramesh Shankarrao S. led his evidence by filing affidavit and relied on the documents which are relied in consumer complaint No.335 of 2014.
2620. In consumer complaint No.337 of 2014 complainant Shri.Anklesaria led his evidence by filing evidence affidavit and relied upon various documents.
To give counterblow Opponent Shri.Rahul Kadam led his evidence by filing affidavit and relied on the documents which are relied in consumer complaint No.335 of 2014.
21. In consumer complaint No.338 of 2014 complainant Shri.Mahesh Pardiwala led his evidence by filing evidence affidavit and relied upon various documents.
To give counterblow Opponent Shri.Rahul Kadam led his evidence by filing affidavit and relied on the documents which are relied in consumer complaint No.335 of 2014.
22. In consumer complaint No.358 of 2014 complainant Shri.Arjun Khadapkar led his evidence by filing evidence affidavit and relied upon various documents.
To give counterblow Opponent Shri.Rahul Kadam led his evidence by filing affidavit and relied on the documents which are relied in consumer complaint No.335 of 2014.
23. In all consumer complaints both the parties have filed brief notes of written argument. Heard Ld.Counsel Shri.Ajay Nandgaonkar for the complainants and Ld.Counsel Shri.Girish Shedge for opponent Nos.4 to 6.
Admitted Facts-
24. Complainants/flat holders are the consumers of opponent No.1 M/s.Shubham Builders and Developers. Opponent No.1 M/s.Shubham Builders and Developers is a registered partnership firm. Opponent Nos.2 27 to 6 are the partners of said firm. Opponent No.1 is developer and promoter of bunglow/ building/row house project named "Serene County" on a plot of land bearing Gat No.113/2 admeasuring totally about 04 Hectares lying being and situated at Villae Varsoli, Tal.Maval, Dist.Pune. Opponents have got the building plans and layout sanctioned from the concerned Town Planning Authorities and started the project in our about 2007. Complainants agreed to purchase bunglow/units/building/row house from the project of opponent No.1 for consideration. Possession was given to some of the unit holders. However, amenities as per assurances are not provided. Therefore, complainants filed consumer complaints by alleging deficiency in service. As on today, all the opponents are partners of opponent No.1 Firm. Opponent No.1 Firm is not dissolved. The Firm is under the name and style as "Shubham Builder and Developers", which is a registered partnership firm. Opponents have filed copy of registration on record. The Firm has acquired development rights of plot Nos.21 to 25 and 27 to 43 totally admeasuring 12622.75 sq.mtrs carved out of sanctioned layout of survey No.113/2 totally admeasuring 04 H. 00 R situated at village Varsoli, Tal.Maval, Dist.Pune. As per the conditions of Partnership Deed Shri.Rahul Kadam and Shri.Anant Pandit were authorized to operate bank accounts. Said Partnership Firm entered into some Agreements to Sell and thereby agreed to sell some units to the respective purchasers on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Opponents have opened account in Axis Bank, Jangli Maharaj Road Branch, Pune and Canara Bank, Jangli Maharaj Road Branch, Pune in the name of Partnership Firm. Said accounts were operated by Opponent Shri.Rahul Kadam and Shri.Anant Pandit. However, Shri.Anant Pandit subsequently refused to give accounts of the firm and therefore opponent Shri.Rahul Kadam has stopped signing cheques and thereafter the dispute arose between these opponents and Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani. They filed litigation against each other before the Court of Law. Shri.Anant Pandit filed Misc.Application No.746 of 2010 before the District Court, Pune u/s 9 of 28 the Arbitration Act for seeking prohibitory orders against opponent Nos.4 to
6. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 issued Public Notice on 28/09/2010 in Daily Times of India through Advocate and informed public at large that opponent Nos.2 and 3 have played fraud upon these opponents and are trying to create third party interest and further requested public at large not to enter into any transaction with opponent Nos.2 and 3.
25. Moreover, these opponents filed another Misc.Application No.801 of 2010 before the District Court, Pune. District Court, Pune was pleased to reject application for temporary injunction filed by Anant Pandit in Misc.Appln.No.746 of 2010. District Court, Pune was pleased to allow application of these opponents filed in Misc.Appln.No.801 of 2010 and thereby restrained Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani from operating bank accounts of the partnership firm, carrying out any development on the site and creating third party interest in the suit property. Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani have deliberately adopted the name of earlier partnership firm and opened a separate bank account in ICICI Bank showing therein that Anant Pandit and Prakash Rakhyani are the only partners of the said firm and started accepting further consideration of the units from the respective unit holders.
26. It is not disputed that Shri.Anant Pandit had filed Arbitration Petition No.43 of 2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay for appointment of sole arbitrator as per the terms and conditions of the partnership deed. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 gave no objection for appointment of the Arbitrator and referring the dispute to the Arbitrator. Hon'ble High Court was pleased to appoint Shri.S.S.Banhatti as sole Arbitrator for dissolution of the partnership firm and settlement of the accounts of the firm. Arbitration proceeding is still pending. Opponent Nos.4 to 6 have filed police complaint with Deccan Police station, however, the concerned police officers did not take cognizance of the aid complaint and therefore 29 Shri.Ramesh Shrimanwar filed private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune and the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune directed Deccan police station to lodge F.I.R. against Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani as per provisions of 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In pursuance of the said complaint both of them were arrested and released on bail.
All these facts can be ascertained from public documents filed on record. By keeping in mind unchallenged facts and evidence on record, let us proceed to decide points for determination.
REASONS-
As to the Point No.1 (Maintainability)
27. It is urged on behalf of the Learned Advocate for Opponent Nos.4 to 6 that complicated questions of facts and law are involved in these consumer complaints. Opponent Nos.2 and 3 played fraud against opponent Nos.4 to 6. Opponent Shri.Anant Dilip Pandit and Shri.Prakash Chouthram Rakhyani made collusion with each other and have illegally formed another partnership firm on 17/03/2009 in the name and style of "Shubham Builders". Both of them have deliberately adopted the name of earlier partnership firm and opened a separate bank account in ICICI Bank showing therein that Anant Pandit and Prakash Rakhyani are the only partners of the said firm and started accepting further consideration of the units from the respective unit holders. Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani by taking undue advantage of formation of illegal partnership firm started dealing with other units with the prospective purchasers and entered into some agreements with the purchasers and sale proceeds of the said units have been deposited in new account and withdrawn the same and used for their own purposes. Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani have hijacked business of the original partnership firm. Shri.Anant Pandit filed Misc.Application No.746 of 2010 before the District Court, Pune 30 under section 9 of the Arbitration Act for seeking prohibitory orders against these opponents. Dispute is already referred to the Arbitrator. Complicated issues of fraud, formation of new partnership firm, undue advantage of partners Shri.Anant Pandit and Shri.Prakash Rakhyani cannot be decided in a summary proceeding. It requires elaborate evidence. Examination of the witnesses and thorough investigation of the documents are necessary. Complicated issues can be decided by the Civil Court in Civil Suit. Civil Suit is a remedy available to the complainants. Considering the complicity of the proceedings and issues involved consumer complaints are not maintainable.
28. We do not find any substance in this argument. Consumer complaints are filed by independent unit holders by alleging deficiency in service. In a summary proceeding we have to decide the consumer dispute between the parties. We are not supposed to deal with inter-se dispute between the partners. We are least concern with dissolution of partnership firm and settlement of account between the partners. It is true that there are several litigations filed by the partners of the firm against each other. Disputes and grievances between the parties will be decided at proper Court/Forum by the competent authority. A simple question is before us whether opponents are guilty of deficiency of service. Issue raised by the complainants pertaining the consumer dispute can be decided before this Commission.
29. Hon'ble Apex Court while passing judgment in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant and others v/s. Shreenath Chaturvedi on 12/08/2002 in Appeal (Civil) no.7975/2001 held as under:-
"It was next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided.31
Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For trial to be just and reasonable long drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards."
30. In view of the ruling laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we do not find substance in the objection raised on behalf of the opponent. Grievance raised by the complainants can be decided by the State Commission and we are of the view that the consumer complaints are tenable before the State Commission. As a result, we answer point No.1 in affirmative.
As to point no.2:-
31. This point is pertaining to deficiency of service on the part of opponents. It is the case of the complainants that after payment of consideration, possession of booked units were given to the complainants but the construction of the unit/row house/duplex is incomplete, imperfect and without amenities as per agreement. Opponent nos.4,5 & 6 denied in written statement as well as during course of arguments and in evidence that consideration is paid to these opponents and, as such, they are liable to remove the deficiencies or to provide the amenities.
3232. In consumer complaint no.CC/14/335 the complainants state that the opponents gave possession of booked unit to the complainants on 10/01/2010 without possession letter after taking Rs.76,000/- for three years maintenance, Rs.85,000/- for electricity connection and Rs.2 lakhs towards Club Membership. The amount was collected illegally without completing the work. The opponent nos.2 & 3 have admitted at the time of handing over possession that there are certain works like inferior painting, access road, garden plantation and other issues, which they would take care of immediately, but till today nothing has been done. The common amenities including the layout road, approach road and beautification including all the amenities as mentioned in Schedule-V of the said agreement have not been completed till today.
33. It appears that the opponents asked the complainants to get the necessary things completed on their own and the opponents would reimburse the complainants immediately. So the complainants spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and, accordingly, informed to the opponents, but the opponents have not reimbursed the said amount. They have sent e-mails to the opponents since 2009 stating the deficiency in service and shortcomings. Thereafter, complainants sought services of the Government approved Valuer and Architect Mr.Vineet O. Agarwal, who has given his detailed valuation report dated 21/07/2014. Valuation of work of all the amenities comes to around Rs.2,28,93,000/-. The total number of unit holders is 22 and each member/unit holder/purchaser has a share of incomplete work of amenities to the tune of Rs.10,40,590/- approximately. Apart from total cost of the unit, the opponents have taken an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- as an extra amount, which is beyond the agreed cost. Said amount was paid by the complainants in the Association formed by all the unit purchasers of the said project and paid to one of the partners Shri Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam as per the instructions of all the other partners of the opponent firm. Opponent nos.4 to 6 submitted that in consumer complaint 33 no.CC/14/335 they have received an amount of Rs.33,09,632/- which is paid by cheques and RTGS. Payment of rest of the amount of consideration is denied by the opponents. It is submitted by the complainants that total amount of Rs.54,95,126/- is paid to the opponents.
34. In consumer complaint no.CC/14/336 the complainants state on oath that the opponents gave possession of booked unit to the complainants on 16/03/2010 after taking Rs.2,55,000/- which included an amount of Rs.75,000/- for three years maintenance and Rs.50,000/- for additional work which has never been fully and effectually done. The amount was collected illegally without completing the work. The opponent nos.2 & 3 have admitted at the time of handing over possession that there are certain works like inferior painting, access road, garden plantation and other issues, which they would take care of immediately, but till today nothing has been done. The common amenities including the layout road, approach road and beautification including all the amenities as mentioned in Schedule-V of the said agreement have not been completed till today.
35. It is further evident that the opponents asked the complainants to get the necessary things completed on their own and the opponents would reimburse the complainants immediately. So the complainants spent an amount of Rs.2,73,700/- and, accordingly, informed to the opponents, but the opponents have not reimbursed the said amount. They have sent e-mails to the opponents since 2009 stating the deficiency in service and shortcomings. Thereafter, complainants sought services of the Government approved Valuer and Architect Mr.Vineet O. Agarwal, who has given his detailed valuation report dated 11/08/2014. Valuation of work of all the amenities comes to around Rs.2,28,93,000/-. The total number of unit holders is 22 and each member/unit holder/purchaser has a share of incomplete work of amenities to the tune of Rs.10,40,500/- approximately. Apart from total cost of the unit, the opponents have taken an amount of 34 Rs.3,20,000/- as an extra amount, which is beyond the agreed cost. Said amount was paid by the complainants in the Association formed by all the unit purchasers of the said project and paid to one of the partners Shri Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam as per the instructions of all the other partners of the opponent firm. According to opponent nos.4 to 6, opponent no.1 received Rs.27,50,000/- only and still an amount of Rs.22,50,000/- is due.
36. In consumer complaint no.CC/14/337 the complainants have stated on oath that till today they did not get possession of Row House bearing no.40-2 having an area of 1561.97 sq.ft. (built up) as per terms and conditions of registered Sale Deed dated 27/10/2010. They have paid more than 80% of sale consideration. The amenities as mentioned in Schedule V of the agreement are not completed. For common amenities they sought services of Government approved Valuer and Architect Mr.Vineet O. Agarwal, who has given his detailed valuation report dated 10/07/2014. The valuation of incomplete work of the said unit comes to around Rs.28,64,500/-. The cost of amenities on share of complainants is around Rs.10,40,590/-. Apart from total cost of the unit, the opponents have taken an amount of Rs.4,37,500/- as an extra amount, which is beyond the agreed cost. Said amount was paid by the complainants in the Association formed by all the unit purchasers of the said project and paid to one of the partners Shri Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam as per the instructions of all the other partners of the opponent firm.
37. According to opponent nos.4 to 6, complainants have not made payment of consideration to opponent no.1. Mere filing of receipts does not prove that the amount of consideration is paid to opponent no.1. The receipts filed on record are denied by these opponents. The complainants have filed receipt no.1 for payment of Rs.4,50,000/- and receipt of payment of Rs.50,000/-. It is alleged that payment of Rs.4,37,500/- is made to the opponents. An amount of Rs.20 lakhs is paid through Association of 35 Purchasers. It is stand of the opponents that payment is not towards consideration.
38. In consumer complaint no.CC/14/338 the complainants have stated that they have purchased Twin Type Bungalow bearing no.29(II) having an area of 1920 sq.ft. (carpet) under Agreement for Sale dated 02/05/2009 for a consideration of Rs.55 lakhs. Complainants have paid an amount of Rs.48 lakhs out of sale consideration, which is more than 85% of sale consideration. The opponents have not completed the project. The unit is in a dilapidated condition. The common amenities as mentioned in Schedule V of the agreement are not provided. The complainants sought services of Government approved Valuer and Architect Mr.Vineet O. Agarwal, who has given his detailed valuation report dated 21/07/2014.
39. The valuation of incomplete work of the said unit comes to around Rs.11,52,000/-. The cost of amenities is around Rs.10,40,590/-. Apart from total cost of the unit, the opponents have taken an amount of Rs.6,40,000/- as an extra amount, which is beyond the agreed cost. Said amount was paid by the complainants in the Association formed by all the unit purchasers of the said project and paid to one of the partners Shri Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam as per the instructions of all the other partners of the opponent firm. The opponents have given possession of the unit which is not fully constructed.
40. The complainants have filed receipts of the payment. The opponents have denied payment to opponent no.1. It is submitted by the opponents that receipts by the claimants are not sufficient to prove payment. The agreement dated 02/05/2009 is also denied by the opponents.
41. In consumer complaint no.CC/14/358 the complainants have stated that they have purchased Twin Type Bungalow bearing no.36 (I) having an area of 1920 sq.ft. under Agreement for Sale dated 23/12/2008 for a 36 consideration of Rs.49,53,268/-. The complainants state that possession of the unit was given to them by the opponents on 29/06/2010 after taking Rs.75,000/- for three years maintenance, electricity connection and Rs.2,50,000/- towards Club Membership. It is added that opponents required some funds urgently and requested the complainants to give an amount of Rs.15 lakhs and which was given by the complainants in good gesture and which the opponents promised to return soon also with a promise to utilize the same in the project itself, but the same has not been returned.
42. It is stated on oath that thereafter complainants sought the services of the Government approved Valuer and Architect Mr.Vineet O. Agarwal, who has given his detailed valuation report dated 31/07/2014. Valuation of work of all the amenities comes to around Rs.2,28,93,000/-. The total number of unit holders is 22 and each member/unit holder/purchaser has a share of incomplete work of amenities to the tune of Rs.10,40,500/-. Apart from total cost of the unit, the opponents have taken an amount of Rs.6,40,000/- as an extra amount, which is beyond the agreed cost. Said amount was paid by the complainants in the Association formed by all the unit purchasers of the said project and paid to one of the partners Shri Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam as per the instructions of all the other partners of the opponent firm.
43. The opponents denied the receipts filed by the complainants and consequently denied payment of consideration. It is submitted that in collusion with opponent nos.2 & 3 the complainants have taken possession of unit illegally on 10/01/2010. There is no evidence to prove that extra work was done. It is submitted that valuation report cannot be accepted.
44. In all consumer complaints, notices were sent to the opponents through an advocate. Notices were sent through Advocate Mr.Ajay Nandgaonkar which was received by the opponents. Notice was only replied by opponent no.3. Opponent nos.4, 5 & 6 replied on 30/08/2014, 37 which was received by the complainants on 08/09/2014. There is inordinate delay in sending reply to the notice by the opponents.
45. Opponent nos.1, 2 & 3 did not contest the claim. They failed to appear and failed to resist the claims by filing written statement. There is no denial about receipts of the payment towards consideration by the complainants. It is the case of complainants that they have made payment to opponent no.1 -M/s.Shubham Builders & Developers through partners. If the payment is received by opponent nos.2 & 3 on behalf of opponent no.1, said payment is towards consideration to opponent no.1. All the partners are liable for the acts and responsibility of the partnership firm.
46. Admittedly, the complainants have booked units/row houses/twin bungalows from the project of opponent no.1. In view of section 5 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, duty is cast upon the promoter to maintain separate account of sums taken as advance or deposit from the purchasers intending to take units from the project of the builder/promoter. The fact is within the knowledge of the opponents, whether said account is maintained in the name of the complainants/purchasers. It is for the opponents to give details as to when the amount was paid by the purchasers and said amount was disbursed for which purpose. The promoter/ builder is duty bound to make full disclosure of transactions in respect of that account. Opponent no.1 and partners did not make disclosure of transactions and account maintained in the name of purchasers/complainants. The opponent nos.4, 5 & 6 are the partners of opponent no.1 firm but they have not filed written statement on behalf of opponent no.1. It is the submission of opponent nos.4, 5 & 6 that as per terms and conditions of partnership deed Mr.Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam and Mr.Anant Dilip Pandit were authorized to operate bank accounts. The accounts were operated by Mr.Rahul Bhagwanrao Kadam and Mr.Anant Dilip Pandit. Opponent Mr.Anant Dilip Pandit subsequently refused to give accounts of the firm and therefore, 38 opponent Mr.Rahul Kadam stopped signing the cheques and dispute arose between opponent nos.4, 5 & 6 ( on one side) and Mr.Anant Dilip Pandit and Mr.Prakash C. Rakhyani (on other side). It can be inferred that these opponents have no knowledge about the payment made by complainants/ purchasers to opponent no.1 through opponent nos.2 & 3. Opponent nos.2 & 3 did not come forward to deny payment. Payment made by the complainants to the firm through partners i.e. opponent nos.2 & 3 is a valid payment. Said payment is binding on firm as well as on opponent nos.4, 5 & 6. As on today all the opponents are partners of opponent no.1 firm. Opponent no.1 firm is not dissolved.
47. It is urged on behalf of the opponents that opponent nos.4 to 6 were ready and willing to complete the scheme. The said scheme could not be completed. The opponents were having interest and genuine intention to complete the scheme. The opponents have time and again informed all the unit purchasers about the fraud played by Mr.Anant Pandit and Mr.Prakash Rakhyani and sent notice dated 11/11/2010 to the complainants about the fraud played by opponents- Mr.Anant Pandit and Mr.Prakash Rakhyani and also gave information about the order passed against opponent nos.2 & 3. Notice was duly served upon the complainants. These opponents again sent notice on 20/12/2010 to the complainants. In spite of that unit purchasers did not bother to verify the fact. Complainants have not taken any action against opponent nos.2 & 3. Opponent nos.2&3 have prepared false and fabricated possession letters. In fact, opponent Mr.Prakash Rakhyani had no authority to issue possession letter to the complainants/ purchasers. According to the case made out by opponent nos.2&3 in Arbitration Petition no.746/2010 the firm was dissolved on 13/03/2009. After dissolution of firm, opponent no.3 had no right to collect the amount from the claimants and to issue possession letter to the complainants. Therefore, original firm is not liable to perform part of the agreement.
3948. Learned advocate Mr.Shedge for opponent nos.4, 5 & 6 on the basis of evidence pointed out that unit purchasers Mr.Vinayak Vitthal More, Mr.Sushilkumar Suri along with Mr.Raju Jaiswal and Mr.Bharat Jain approached these opponents and informed that they are going to settle the dispute with Mr.Anant Pandit and Mr.Prakash Rakhyani. It is further informed that Mr.Raju Jaiswal and Mr.Bharat Jain are going to take over the business of the original partnership firm and they will pay off all the amounts that may be due to these opponents and all the responsibility of completing the project. These opponents decided to settle the matter.
49. Own pleadings of opponent nos.4, 5 & 6 show that Mr.Raju Jaiswal and Mr.Bharat Jain paid some amount to these opponents towards share of these opponents in the partnership firm. It was agreed that Mr.Bharat Jain, Mr.Jaiswal, Mr.Anant Pandit and Mr.Prakash Rakhyani will continue the original partnership firm and they will take responsibility of the project. It is very much clear that Mr.Bharat Jain and Mr.Jaiswal have not paid entire agreed consideration and therefore, "Deed of Retirement" as agreed was not executed. It means that the opponents are partners of firm i.e. opponent no.1. They have received some payment from Mr.Bharat Jain and Mr.Jaiswal. It is harped upon by the complainants that amount is paid to opponent no.1 through opponent nos.2 & 3. The submission made by the opponents and the nature of proceedings show that there is a dispute between the partners/opponents. The dispute and litigation between partners inter-se will not affect the genuine claim of the complainants. It is for the opponents to complete the project, to give legal possession to the complainants of the purchased units with all amenities. The partners can settle their internal dispute before proper court and settle the account of the partnership firm.
50. In some cases opponents have issued possession letter to the unit holders. Possession letter is issued to complainants -Mrs.Lata Paramanand 40 Desai and Mr.Paramanand B.Desai on 16/03/2010 pertaining to twin bungalow unit no.30-II. Possession letter was signed by opponent Mr.Prakash Rakhyani. It can be inferred that without payment of total amount of consideration, builder will not hand over possession of unit to the purchasers/ complainants. On possession letter issued to complainants - Mrs.Lata Paramanand Desai and Mr.Paramanand B.Desai, there is an endorsement that full and final payment is made. Endorsement shows about receipt of extra amount of Rs.2,55,000/-. There is an endorsement pertaining to incomplete work. The endorsement is as under:-
"subject to finishing of a few items discussed with Prakashbhai (basin, mirror, crades on wooden frames, patches in painting, etc."
It means that when possession of units was given, work was incomplete. Nothing is on record to show that incomplete work was completed as per assurance. In Valuation report value of incomplete work is reported by Government Valuer.
51. Capital is made about prohibitory order and urged that due to prohibitory order it was not possible to proceed with construction or to complete project.
52. In Arbitration proceeding bearing no.801/2010 in reply present opponents Mr.Anant Pandit and Mr.Prakash Rakhyani admitted that opponents were the partners of opponent no.1 and submitted that Opponent nos.4, 5 & 6 failed to contribute the funds for development. Opponent Anant Pandit was constrained to dissolve the partnership firm on account of non contribution of funds by opponent nos.4 to 6. It is brought to our knowledge that opponent no.1 is a partnership at Will. While passing order, Pune District Court held that firm is not legally and validly dissolved. The very act of opponent Anant Pandit in establishing a new firm is illegal and bad in law. Ultimately, learned District Court, Pune allowed the application filed by present opponent nos.4, 5 & 6 and rejected Misc. Application 41 no.MA/10/746 filed by opponent Mr.Anant Pandit. It is clear that all the opponents are still partners of opponent no.1 firm. All the partners are jointly and severally liable to fulfill the obligations of the firm.
53. The complainants have duly proved that they have paid consideration as per agreement to opponent no.1 through partners. They have paid maintenance charges of three years, Club Membership charges and charges of electricity meters. Some amount was paid to opponent nos.4, 5 & 6 through Association of purchasers. The opponents cannot deny the payments made by the complainants to the firm through partners, when payment receipts and bank statements are on record. Payment is not denied by opponent nos.1 to 3.
54. Learned counsel Mr.Shedge for the opponents vehemently urged that the complainants were informed about the fraud played by the opponent nos.2 & 3. Still payment was made to opponent nos.2 & 3. The complainants Mr.Vinayak Vitthal More, Mr.Sushilkumar Suri along with Mr.Raju Jaiswal and Mr.Bharat Jain have made collusion with each other. They have deceived the complainants. Therefore liability cannot be fastened on opponent nos.4, 5 & 6.
55. One thing is clear that the complainants have made payment to opponent no.1 as per direction of the partners. The bonafide purchasers/ complainants/consumers should not suffer due to dispute between and amongst the partners. They are entitled to claim amenities as per agreement and the opponents are liable to remove the deficiencies and to make the payment of amounts spent by the complainants to make the premises habitable and the financial loss suffered by the complainants.
56. In arbitration proceedings prohibitory order was passed against opponents Mr.Anant Pandit and Mr.Prakash Rakhyani. They were restrained from creating third party interest in respect of subject matter of 42 arbitration proceedings and to deal with the properties in any way. They were restrained from operating the bank accounts in the name of M/s.Shubham Builders and Developers till disposal of main arbitration proceedings. However, there was no prohibitory order against opponent nos.4, 5 & 6. They could have proceeded with the completion of the project, particularly when amount was paid by the complainants to opponent no.1. Amount was also paid to opponent nos.4, 5 & 6 through Association of purchasers.
57. Schedule V of the Agreement executed by the opponents in favour of the complainants is not disputed. The opponents agreed to provide following amenities to the complainants/unit holders free of costs.
1. Lawn Tennis
2. Jogging Track
3. Cricket Pitch
4. Mini Basket Ball
5. Play Park
6. Indoor Games
7. Gazebo
8. Party Lawn
9. Cafeteria
10. Meditation Hall
11. Gymnasium
12. Concrete Roads
13. Intercom Facility
14. Fireplace
15. Steam
16. Sauna
17. Indoor Jacuzzi
18. House Keeping Facility
19. Street Lights 43
58. The opponents failed to substantiate that the amenities mentioned in Schedule V of the Agreement were provided by the opponents.
59. The complainants made grievance that they have paid amount towards electricity meter, club membership and lump sum maintenance charges for three years. As per clause in the Agreement, purchasers agreed to pay consideration towards electricity transformer, electricity meter, club membership charges and lump sum maintenance charges for three years. It is urged by the opponents that the purchasers cannot raise grievance for the same.
60. We find no hesitation to say that evidence on behalf of opponents fall short to prove that project is maintained by the opponents, Club is established and electricity meter is given on receipt of payment. It is duly proved that each unit holder will require to spend an amount of Rs.10,40,590/- for securing common amenities. The complainants required to complete the work by spending extra amount. Additional sale consideration was accepted from the complainants. Possession of the booked units was given to some complainants without Possession Certificate and Occupation Certificate. It is the statutory duty of the opponents/ builders to give booked units to the complainants with Possession Certificate, Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate with all amenities as per agreement. We find no hesitation to hold that the opponents are guilty of deficiency in service. As a result, we answer point no.2 in affirmative.
As to point nos.3, 4, 5 & 6:-
In Consumer Complaint no.CC/14/335
61. The complainants are entitled for reliefs in consumer complaint no.CC/14/335. Complainants- Mrs.Hufrish Karl Dadrevala and Mr.Karl 44 Jimmy Dadrevala received possession of Row House bearing no.33-II on 10/01/2010. It is duly proved that they have paid total amount of consideration as per agreement to the opponents. They have paid extra amount of Rs.3,20,000/-. They themselves got the work done by spending an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Their share in common amenities is calculated as Rs.10,40,500/-. In the case in hand, the opponents are liable to remove the deficiencies in services as prayed for. The complainants are entitled to claim Possession Certificate, Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate from the opponents. The opponents are liable to give electricity meter, water meter along with relevant documents. The complainants are entitled for refund of escalation costs of Rs.3,20,000/-. The complainants have suffered mental pain and agony. They are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and opponents are liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants. The complainants were required to complete the construction by spending some amount. The complainants are claiming common amenities. Therefore, they are not entitled for amount of their share as per Valuation by Government Valuer. They are required to file court proceedings for getting the reliefs to substantiate their rights. They are required to issue notices to the opponents by engaging an advocate. The complainants are entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation charges. Accordingly, we answer point nos.3,4,5&6 in affirmative in consumer complaint no.CC/14/335.
In Consumer Complaint no.CC/14/336
62. The complainants are entitled for reliefs in consumer complaint no.CC/14/336. Complainants- Mrs.Lata Paramanand Desai and Mr.Paramanand B. Desai received possession of Row House bearing no.30- II on 16/03/2010. It is duly proved that they have paid total amount of consideration as per agreement to the opponents. They have paid extra amount of Rs.3,20,000/-. They themselves got the work done by spending an amount of Rs.2,73,700/-. Their share in common amenities is calculated 45 as Rs.10,40,500/-. In the case in hand, the opponents are liable to remove the deficiencies in services as prayed for. The complainants are entitled to claim Possession Certificate, Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate from the opponents. The opponents are liable to give electricity meter, water meter along with relevant documents. The complainants are entitled for refund of escalation costs of Rs.3,20,000/-. The complainants have suffered mental pain and agony. They are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and opponents are liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants. The complainants were required to complete the construction to make it livable by spending some amount. The complainants are claiming common amenities. Therefore, they are not entitled for amount of their share as per Valuation by Government Valuer. They are required to file court proceedings for getting the reliefs to substantiate their rights. They are required to issue notices to the opponents by engaging an advocate. The complainants are entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation charges. Accordingly, we answer point nos.3,4,5&6 in affirmative in consumer complaint no.CC/14/336.
In Consumer Complaint no.CC/14/337
63. Complainants- Mr.Shahrukh Keki Anklesaria and Mrs.Sanober Shahrukh Anklesaria booked Row House bearing no.40-2 vide registered agreement dated 27/10/2010. It is alleged by the complainants that they did not get possession of bungalow in spite of payment of consideration to the opponents. They had paid an extra amount of Rs.4,37,500/-. Their share comes to Rs.10,40,500/- towards incomplete work of amenities. Agreed consideration of the unit booked by the complainants as per agreement is Rs.38,01,524/-. The complainants have paid more amount than that of agreed consideration. Still they did not get legal possession of booked unit along with amenities as per agreement. The complainants are ready to pay balance consideration of Rs.13,01,524/- to the opponents. The 46 complainants are entitled to claim legal possession of the unit from the opponents along with Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate with all amenities as incorporated in the agreement. The complainants have paid extra amount of Rs.4,37,500/- to the opponents. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is benevolent legislation. Reliefs can be granted for which consumer is entitled in the interest of justice, to meet out and decide real controversies. The opponents are liable to remove the deficiencies, to give possession of the unit to the complainants along with Completion Certificate, Occupation Certificate and agreed amenities. The opponents are liable to provide electricity meter, water meter along with relevant documents. The complainants are entitled for refund of escalation costs, for compensation and costs of litigation. The complainants are claiming common amenities. Therefore, they are not entitled for amount of their share as per Valuation by Government Valuer. Accordingly, we answer point nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 in affirmative in consumer complaint no.CC/14/337.
In Consumer Complaint no.CC/14/338
64. Complainants -Mrs.Rajul Mahesh Pardiwala and Mr.Mahesh K.Pardiwala agreed to purchase bungalow bearing no.29-II having an area 1920 sq.ft. from the project of the opponents for the consideration of Rs.55 lakhs. They have paid an amount of Rs.48 lakhs to the opponents. Receipts and bank statements are filed on record. They have paid an extra amount of Rs.6,40,000/-. There share towards construction of common amenities comes to Rs.10,40,500/-. In spite of receipt of full amount towards consideration, agreement is not executed in favour of the complainants. Agreement is executed subsequently and it is registered on 27/03/2018. Construction of unit booked by the complainants is not completed. The complainants are ready to pay balance amount of Rs.7 lakhs to the opponents at the time of handing over possession of bungalow to them with all amenities. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is benevolent legislation. Reliefs can be granted for which consumer is entitled in the interest of 47 justice to meet out and decide real controversies. The opponents are liable to remove the deficiencies, to hand over possession of unit with Possession Certificate, Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate. The opponents are liable to give electricity meter, water meter along with relevant documents to the complainants. The complainants have paid an extra amount of Rs.6,40,000/-. Said amount can be adjusted towards balance amount. The complainants are entitled for the reliefs. The complainants are entitled for compensation for mental pain and agony. The complainants are claiming common amenities. Therefore, they are not entitled for amount of their share as per Valuation by Government Valuer. They are required to engage an advocate to contest their claim. They are entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation. Accordingly, we answer point nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 in affirmative in consumer complaint no.CC/14/338.
In Consumer Complaint no.CC/14/358
65. Complainants-Mr.Arjun Kashinath Khadapkar and Mrs.Nayan Arjun Khadapkar agreed to purchase Twin Type Bungalow bearing no.36 (I) having an area of 1920 sq.ft. for total consideration of Rs.49,53,268/-. They received possession of Row House on 29/06/2010. It is duly proved that they have paid total amount of consideration as per agreement to the opponents. They have paid extra amount of Rs.6,40,000/-. They themselves got the work done by spending an amount of Rs.9,94,500/-. Their share in common amenities is calculated as Rs.10,40,500/-. In the case in hand, the opponents are liable to remove the deficiencies in services as prayed for. The complainants are entitled to claim Possession Certificate, Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate from the opponents. The opponents are liable to give electricity meter, water meter along with relevant documents. The complainants are entitled for refund of escalation costs of Rs.3,20,000/-. The complainants have suffered mental pain and agony. They are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and 48 opponents are liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants. The complainants were required to complete the construction by spending some amount. The complainants are claiming common amenities. Therefore, they are not entitled for amount of their share as per Valuation by Government Valuer. They are required to file court proceedings for getting the reliefs to substantiate their rights. They are required to issue notices to the opponents by engaging an advocate. The complainants are entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation charges. Accordingly, we answer point nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 in affirmative in consumer complaint no.CC/14/358.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER IN CC/14/335
1. Consumer complaint no.CC/14/335 is hereby partly allowed.
2. Opponents are hereby declared as guilty of deficiency in service.
3. Opponents are held liable to remove the deficiencies. Opponents do jointly and severally provide the following services, which are as under:-
i) MSEB transformer to be provided to entire facility
ii) 3 phase MSEB meter for the said unit/bungalow
iii) Municipal water supply line of required capacity
iv) Distribution network with appropriate pumps for supply of water to unit/bungalow
v) Complete RCC boundary wall of appropriate height with barbed wire fencing on top.
vi) Fencing for unit/bungalow
vii) Gate with guard cabin
4. Opponents jointly and severally do provide all the amenities as mentioned in Schedule V of the Agreement of Sale which are as under:-
i) Play Park for children 49
ii) Party Lawn with hedge fencing and plants.
iii) Concrete Internal Roads of appropriate width
iv) Intercom facility for unit/bungalows and to all amenity locations as well as guard cabins.
v) Street Lights on all internal roads
vi) Party Hall
vii) Servants/Drivers quarters (Utility will be charged)
viii) CCTV for the entire facility
5. Opponents do jointly and severally give Possession certificate, Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate in respect of Row House bearing no.33-II having an area of 1920.89 sq.ft. i.e.178.45 sq.mtrs. in a project named "SERENE COUNTY" on a plot of land bearing Gat no.113/2 admeasuring about 4 Hectares lying and situated at village Varsoli, Taluka Maval, District Pune within 4 months from receipt of copy of order.
6. Opponents do jointly and severally hand over the electricity meter and water meter along with its relevant documents.
7. Opponents do jointly and severally complete the entire project as agreed in the Agreement of sale within 4 months from receipt of copy of order.
8. Opponents do jointly and severally refund escalation costs of Rs.3,20,000/- to the complainant/s.
9. Opponents do jointly and severally pay the cost of construction of incomplete work of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant/s.
10.Opponents do jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
towards compensation for mental pain and agony and an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation.
11.All the opponents do jointly and severally comply the above mentioned order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of order.
12.Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
50IN CC/14/336
1. Consumer complaint no.CC/14/336 is hereby partly allowed.
2. Opponents are hereby declared as guilty of deficiency in service.
3. Opponents are held liable to remove the deficiencies. Opponents do jointly and severally provide the following services, which are as under:-
i) MSEB transformer to be provided to entire facility
ii) 3 phase MSEB meter for the said unit/bungalow
iii) Municipal water supply line of required capacity
iv) Distribution network with appropriate pumps for supply of water to unit/bungalow
v) Complete RCC boundary wall of appropriate height with barbed wire fencing on top.
vi) Fencing for unit/bungalow
vii) Gate with guard cabin
4. Opponents jointly and severally do provide all the amenities as
mentioned in Schedule V of the Agreement of Sale which are as under:-
i) Play Park for children
ii) Party Lawn with hedge fencing and plants.
iii) Concrete Internal Roads of appropriate width
iv) Intercom facility for unit/bungalows and to all amenity locations as well as guard cabins.
v) Street Lights on all internal roads
vi) Party Hall
vii) Servants/Drivers quarters (Utility will be charged)
viii) CCTV for the entire facility
5. Opponents do jointly and severally give Possession certificate, Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate in respect of Row House bearing no.30-II having an area of 1920 sq.ft. i.e.178.37 51 sq.mtrs. in a project named "SERENE COUNTY" on a plot of land bearing Gat no.113/2 admeasuring about 4 Hectares lying and situated at village Varsoli, Taluka Maval, District Pune within 4 months from receipt of copy of order.
6. Opponents do jointly and severally hand over the electricity meter and water meter along with its relevant documents.
7. Opponents do jointly and severally complete the entire project as agreed in the Agreement of sale within 4 months from receipt of copy of order.
8. Opponents do jointly and severally refund escalation costs of Rs.3,20,000/- to the complainant/s.
9. Opponents do jointly and severally pay the cost of construction of incomplete work of Rs.3,12,000/- to the complainant/s.
10.Opponents do jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
towards compensation for mental pain and agony and an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation.
11.All the opponents do jointly and severally comply the above mentioned order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of order.
12.Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
IN CC/14/337
1. Consumer complaint no.CC/14/337 is hereby partly allowed.
2. Opponents are hereby declared as guilty of deficiency in service.
3. Opponents are held liable to remove the deficiencies. Opponents do jointly and severally provide the following services, which are as under:-
a. MSEB transformer to be provided to entire facility b. 3 phase MSEB meter for the said unit/bungalow c. Municipal water supply line of required capacity d. Distribution network with appropriate pumps for supply of 52 water to unit/bungalow e. Complete RCC boundary wall of appropriate height with barbed wire fencing on top.
f. Fencing for unit/bungalow g. Gate with guard cabin
4. Opponents jointly and severally do provide all the amenities as mentioned in Schedule V of the Agreement of Sale which are as under:-
a. Play Park for children b. Party Lawn with hedge fencing and plants. c. Concrete Internal Roads of appropriate width d. Intercom facility for unit/bungalows and to all amenity locations as well as guard cabins.
e. Street Lights on all internal roads f. Party Hall g. Servants/Drivers quarters (Utility will be charged) h. CCTV for the entire facility
5. Opponents do jointly and severally hand over possession of booked Row House bearing no. 40-2 having an area of 1561.97 sq.ft. (built up) in a project named "SERENE COUNTY" on a plot of land bearing Gat no.113/2 admeasuring about 4 Hectares lying and situated at village Varsoli, Taluka Maval, District Pune with Possession certificate, Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate within 4 months from receipt of copy of order on payment of consideration by the complainants.
6. Complainants do pay balance consideration of Rs.13,01,524/- to opponent No.1 by Demand Draft on the date of receipt of possession. Opponent No.1 to inform date of handing over of possession to complainants well in advance.
7. Opponents do jointly and severally hand over the electricity meter and water meter along with its relevant documents.
538. Opponents do jointly and severally complete the entire project as agreed in the Agreement of sale within 4 months from receipt of copy of order.
9. Opponents do jointly and severally refund additional extra amount of Rs.4,37,000/- to the complainant/s.
10.Opponents do jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony and an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation.
11.All the opponents do jointly and severally comply the above mentioned order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of order.
12.Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
IN CC/14/338
1. Consumer complaint no.CC/14/338 is hereby partly allowed.
2. Opponents are hereby declared as guilty of deficiency in service.
3. Opponents are held liable to remove the deficiencies. Opponents do jointly and severally provide the following services, which are as under:-
a. MSEB transformer to be provided to entire facility b. 3 phase MSEB meter for the said unit/bungalow c. Municipal water supply line of required capacity d. Distribution network with appropriate pumps for supply of water to unit/bungalow e. Complete RCC boundary wall of appropriate height with barbed wire fencing on top.
f. Fencing for unit/bungalow g. Gate with guard cabin
4. Opponents jointly and severally do provide all the amenities as mentioned in Schedule V of the Agreement of Sale which are as under:-
54a. Play Park for children b. Party Lawn with hedge fencing and plants. c. Concrete Internal Roads of appropriate width d. Intercom facility for unit/bungalows and to all amenity locations as well as guard cabins.
e. Street Lights on all internal roads f. Servants/Drivers quarters (Utility will be charged) g. CCTV for the entire facility
5. Opponents do jointly and severally hand over possession of booked Row House bearing no. 29(II) having an area of 1920 sq.ft. (carpet) in a project named "SERENE COUNTY" on a plot of land bearing Gat no.113/2 admeasuring about 4 Hectares lying and situated at village Varsoli, Taluka Maval, District Pune with Possession certificate, Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate within 4 months from receipt of copy of order on payment of balance consideration by the complainants.
6. Complainants do pay balance consideration of Rs.7 Lakhs to opponent No.1 by Demand Draft on the date of receipt of possession. Opponent No.1 to inform date of handing over of possession to complainants well in advance.
7. Opponents do jointly and severally hand over the electricity meter and water meter along with its relevant documents.
8. Opponents do jointly and severally complete the entire project as agreed in the Agreement of sale within 4 months from receipt of copy of order.
9. Opponents do jointly and severally refund escalation costs of Rs.6,40,000/- to the complainant/s.
10.Opponents do jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony and an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation.
11.All the opponents do jointly and severally comply the above 55 mentioned order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of order.
12.Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
IN CC/14/358
1. Consumer complaint no.CC/14/358 is hereby partly allowed.
2. Opponents are hereby declared as guilty of deficiency in service.
3. Opponents are held liable to remove the deficiencies. Opponents do jointly and severally provide the following services, which are as under:-
a. MSEB transformer to be provided to entire facility b. 3 phase MSEB meter for the said unit/bungalow c. Municipal water supply line of required capacity d. Distribution network with appropriate pumps for supply of water to unit/bungalow e. Complete RCC boundary wall of appropriate height with barbed wire fencing on top.
f. Fencing for unit/bungalow g. Gate with guard cabin
4. Opponents jointly and severally do provide all the amenities as mentioned in Schedule V of the Agreement of Sale which are as under:-
a. Play Park for children b. Party Lawn with hedge fencing and plants. c. Concrete Internal Roads of appropriate width d. Intercom facility for unit/bungalows and to all amenity locations as well as guard cabins.
e. Street Lights on all internal roads f. Servants/Drivers quarters (Utility will be charged) g. CCTV for the entire facility
5. Opponents do jointly and severally give Possession certificate, 56 Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate in respect of Row House bearing no. 36(I) having an area of 1920 sq.ft. i.e. 178.37 sq. mtrs. in a project named "SERENE COUNTY" on a plot of land bearing Gat no.113/2 admeasuring about 4 Hectares lying and situated at village Varsoli, Taluka Maval, District Pune within 4 months from receipt of copy of order.
6. Opponents do jointly and severally hand over the electricity meter and water meter along with its relevant documents.
7. Opponents do jointly and severally complete the entire project as agreed in the Agreement of sale within 4 months from receipt of copy of order.
8. Opponents do jointly and severally refund escalation costs of Rs.6,40,000/- to the complainant/s.
9. Opponents do jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony and an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation.
10.Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
All the opponents do jointly and severally comply the above mentioned order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of order.
Pronounced on 16th August, 2018.
[Usha S.Thakare] Presiding Judicial Member [A.K.Zade] Member Ms 57