State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Babasaheb Yeshwant Gawade vs M/S P V Construction on 16 August, 2018
CC/13/261
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Consumer Case No. CC/13/261
Babasaheb Yeshwant Gawade
(Since deceased through LRs.)
1. Mrs.Nandini Babasaheb Gawde
2. Mr.Ashish Babasaheb Gawde
3. Mr.Ninand Babasaheb Gawde
All residing at Blue Spring,
Telco Colony, Dattanagar,
Ambegaon BK, Pune - 400 046
Through Constituted Attorney
Mr.Yogesh Sambhaji Gawde. ...........Complainant (s)
Versus
1. M/s.P.V. Construction Company
Having Registered Office at
Shree Gaurav Apartments,
90 Feet Road, Navghar Road,
Mulund (East), Mumbai-400 081
AND also at Bhagini Smruti,
Mithaghar Road, Mulund (East),
Mumbai - 400 081.
2. Mr.Yeshwant Manik Patil
Partner of opponent No.1
Having Registered Office at
Shree Gaurav Apartments,
90 Feet Road, Navghar Road,
Mulund (East), Mumbai-400 081
AND also at Bhagini Smruti,
Mithaghar Road, Mulund (East),
Mumbai - 400 081.
3. Mr.Vitthal Manik Patil
Partner of opponent No.1
Having Registered Office at
Shree Gaurav Apartments,
90 Feet Road, Navghar Road,
Mulund (East), Mumbai-400 081
AND also at Bhagini Smruti,
Mithaghar Road, Mulund (East),
Mumbai - 400 081.
4. Gaurav Corner CHS Ltd.
Having office at Gaurav Corner Building,
Navghar Road, Mulund (East),
Mumbai - 400 081. ............Opponent (s)
Page 1 of 16
CC/13/261
BEFORE:
Usha S. Thakare PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
A. K. Zade MEMBER
For the Mr.P.Y. Shankar, Advocate for
Complainant: complainants.
For the Mr.H.G. Misar, Advocate for opponent
Opponent: Nos.1to3.
ORDER
Per Mrs.Usha S. Thakare, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member This consumer complaint was filed by Late Babasaheb Yeshwant Gawade by alleging deficiency in service against opponents through constituted attorney Mr.Sambhaji Gawade. Constituted Attorney Mr.Sambhaji Gawade as well as original complainant-Babasaheb Gawade died during pendency of consumer complaint. Consumer complaint is continued at the instance of legal heirs of original complainant-Babasaheb Gawade. Legal heirs had given Power of Attorney to son of Late Sambhaji Gawade.
2. According to Late Babasaheb Yeshwant Gawade, he was owner of flat No.402 of Gaurav Corner Building, Navghar Road, Mulund (East), Mumbai-400 081. He was residing as owner in flat No.402 and was regularly paying maintenance charges and other dues to Gaurav Corner Co-op. Housing Society i.e. opponent No.4. Original complainant- Babasaheb Gawade is the consumer of opponent No.1. Opponent No.1 is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1936. It is involved in the construction business. Opponent Nos.2&3 are Partners of opponent No.1. Opponent No.4 is the Co-op. Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act, 1960.
3. Complainants state that opponent No.2-Mr.Yeshwant Manik Patil Page 2 of 16 CC/13/261 and Sambhaji Gawade (brother of Late Babasaheb Gawade) were friends. Late Babasaheb Gawade purchased a flat No.402 situated at Gaurav Corner CHS Ltd., Gaurav Corner Building, Navghar Road, Mulund (East), Mumbai-400 081 from opponent No.1 in the year 1986 for total consideration of Rs.4,65,207/-. Amount of Rs.2,37,207/- was paid through cheques. Amount of Rs.2,28,000/- was paid in cash. It was agreed that agreement for sale would be executed in due course of time. Relying on the representation and assurances, complainant paid Rs.25,000/- to opponent No.2 on 05/11/1985 by cheque. During 05/11/1985 to 25/11/1992 complainant paid to opponent Rs.2,28,000/- and also on 17/09/1990 amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid in cash on demand of opponent Nos.2&3. Opponent No.1 did not issue receipts for payment and did not execute agreement for sale. However, one Mr.Desai filed Suit bearing No.R.A.E./474/981/96 against Mrs.Alka Sambhaji Gawade, Sister-in-law of original complainant before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. In said suit opponent No.2-Mr.Yeshwant Patil appeared as witness and filed receipts of payments.
4. It is alleged that construction of building was completed in the year 1992. Opponent Nos.2&3 handed over possession of the flat to complainant without any agreement for sale and without possession receipt. Complainant-Babasaheb Gawade was working in Kirloskar Company at Kirloskarwadi, Sangli. Family of the complainant is a Hindu Undivided Family. Keys of flat were handed over to brother-Mr.Sambhaji Gawade to take care and maintain the same in absence of complainant. Flat was given to Sambhaji Gawade to take care and maintain the same and also to reside in the same flat along with family members. Complainant's brother-Sambhaji Gawade obtained Voter Card on the same address. Brother-Sambhaji Gawade had taken electricity meter, telephone connection and Monthly Unit Scheme from UTI on the address Page 3 of 16 CC/13/261 of same flat. Till date, opponent No.1 did not execute any agreement for sale in spite of oral requests from 1986 to 2004. Complainant by letter dated 02/01/2004 and 05/10/2008 again requested opponent Nos.2&3 to execute agreement for sale of flat. Opponent Nos.1to3 refused to accept the letters and to give acknowledgement. Therefore, letter was sent by registered post on 31/10/2012 which was received by opponent No.2. However, agreement for sale was not executed.
5. Original complainant constrained to file consumer complaint. His brother-Sambhaji Gawade was residing in the booked flat and flat was sought to be gifted to Sambhaji Gawade. Therefore, original complainant- Babasaheb Gawade executed Power of Attorney in favour of his brother on 30/10/2004 to execute agreement for sale with opponent No.1 and also to apply for membership to opponent No.4. Complainant through his brother-Sambhaji Gawade called upon opponent No.4-Society to issue Share Certificate in the name of complainant by letter dated 02/01/2010. However, till date opponent No.4 has not transferred the same without assigning any reason for the same. Opponent No.4 orally informed that his request of 2010 cannot be entertained since Share Certificate of said flat has already been issued in the name of opponent No.1. The flat in question is in possession of complainant and maintenance charges of the flat were paid by complainant. Opponent No.1 fraudulently obtained Share Certificate in the name of opponent No.1. Complainant has already filed Criminal Complaint No. 128/M/2013 before the Court of Magistrate at Mulund, Mumbai. Opponent Nos.1to3 also cheated another purchaser Mrs.Lily Peter Lewis by adopting same modus operandi. It is alleged that opponents are guilty of deficiency in service. Opponent Nos.1to3 had given false promises to complainant and failed to execute agreement for sale, failed to register the same and failed to issue receipts of payments. Due to current market value, opponent Nos.1to3 want to usurp said flat.
Page 4 of 16CC/13/261 By filing present complaint, complainant has requested to declare opponents as guilty of deficiency in service and to direct them to pay amount of Rs.85,25,000/- towards total claim. Opponents may be directed to execute written agreement for sale in respect of flat No.402 and register the same in the name of complainants. Alternatively, they have requested to pay sum of Rs.65 Lakhs i.e. prevailing market value of the flat to the complainants. Complainants also claimed compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs for mental pain and agony, Rs.10 Lakhs for deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- for costs of litigation.
6. Opponent Nos.1to3 resisted the claim by filing written version. They have resisted all adverse allegations. Allegation of deficiency in service is specifically denied. It is admitted that opponent No.1is the Partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and involved in construction business and opponent Nos.2&3 are partners of opponent No.1. It is submitted that total value of agreed flat was Ra.4,65,207/-. Opponents have not received total payment of flat. Amount is not received by opponents under cheque bearing No.349577 dated 05/11/1985 which was issued for Rs.25,000/-. So also cheque bearing No.949579 dated 04/07/1986 for amount of Rs.35,000/- was bounced and was not cleared by the complainant. As such amount of Rs.60,000/- is not received by opponents. Out of total consideration of Rs.4,65,207/-, only amount of Rs.1,77,207/- has been received from complainant by cheque payment. Only 38% of payment is received. 62% amount is not yet received. Because of this reason, agreement for sale with complainant is not entered. If, complainant pays 62% of present value of flat, opponents are ready to enter into agreement for sale and register it. Opponents denied receipt of amount of Rs.2,28,000/- alleged to be paid in cash.
7. It is further submitted that possession was given in good faith due to Page 5 of 16 CC/13/261 cordial relation to carry out interior decoration and furniture work. Possession letter or agreement for sale was not executed in the year 1992 because complainant to make payment of Rs.2,88,000/-. Apart from that, said payment was made by Babasaheb Yeshwant Gawade. His brother- Sambhaji Gawade was demanding agreement for sale in his name. There was existing dispute between two brothers. Therefore, opponents were in dilemma with whom to enter into an agreement. They wanted NOC and declaration from Babasaheb Gawade, who made the part payment. Since, original complainant-Babasaheb Gawade did not pay full amount of consideration and there was no valid agreement executed in favour of complainant, opponent No.4-Society issued and gave Share Certificate in the name of opponent No.1.
8. By filing written version the opponents raised legal objection pertaining to tenability of complaint and have stated that agreement value of the flat is Rs.4,65,207/- and as such District Forum at Bandra has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint. Complainant had demanded market value of flat. Rs.65 Lakhs is the market value of the flat in the year 1992. Complainant has paid only 38% amount of consideration. As per market value, complainant was liable to pay amount of Rs.45 Lakhs towards consideration in the year 1992. If present complainants intend to retain possession of the flat then they should pay Rs.45 Lakhs to opponents. On payment of amount as per market value, complainants are entitled for possession of flat. Opponents requested to direct complainants to make payment as per market value.
9. Opponent No.4-Society though served failed to appear before this Commission and failed to resist the complaint by filing written version.
10. On these pleadings of the parties, following points arise for our Page 6 of 16 CC/13/261 determination and we record our findings thereon for the reasons as below:-
Sr.No. Points Finding
1. Whether this Commission jurisdiction to Yes
try and decide the consumer complaint?
2. Whether opponents are guilty of Yes
deficiency in service?
Yes, as per final
3. Whether complainants are entitled for
reliefs as claimed? If yes, to what extent? order.
4. Complaint is partly
What order?
allowed.
REASONS :-
-: Admitted Facts :-
11. Original Complainant-Babasaheb Yeshwant Gawade had purchased a flat No.402 situated at opponent No.4-Society for total consideration of Rs.4,65,207/-. Construction of the flat is part and parcel of project of opponent No.1. Opponent No.1 is a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and involved in the construction business. Opponent Nos.2&3 are partners of opponent No.1. Opponent No.4 is Co- operative Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. There was cordial relations and friendship between Sambhaji Gawade, brother of Babasaheb Gawade and opponent No.2 who is partner of opponent No.1. Flat was booked in the year 1985 from the project of opponent Nos.1to3 by original complainant-Babasaheb Gawade. Possession of the flat was given to complainant in the year 1992. At the relevant time, agreement for sale or possession letter was not issued. It is admitted that till today agreement for sale is not executed by opponent Nos.1to3 in favour of complainants.
12. Late Sambhaji Gawade is brother of original complainant-
Page 7 of 16CC/13/261 Babasaheb Gawade. Although complainant-Babasaheb Gawade booked a flat and made payment, Sambhaji Gawade was staying in the booked flat along with family members. Family of the complainant was Hindu Undivided Family. Complainant-Babasaheb Gawade executed Power of Attorney in favour of his brother-Late Sambhaji Gawade. On death of Babasaheb Gawade his legal heirs are brought on record as complainants. In the meantime, Sambhaji Gawade, Constituted Power of Attorney holder died. Legal heirs executed Power of Attorney in favour of son of Late Sambhaji Gawade. Complainant-Babasaheb Gawade was paying maintenance charges to opponent No.4-Society through Sambhaji Gawade. Sambhaji Gawade obtained Voter Card on which address of the flat is mentioned as his residence. Late Sambhaji Gawade also obtained electricity meter, telephone connection, Monthly Units Scheme of UTI by mentioning address of said flat as his residence. These facts are not in dispute. One Mr.Desai had filed Civil Suit bearing No. R.A.E/474/981/96. In said suit present opponent No.2 appeared as witness and filed payment receipts pertaining to subject flat towards documentary evidence. Certified copies of those receipts are filed in this case. All these facts are not disputed.
13. To substantiate claim under the consumer complaint, Power of Attorney holder-Sambhaji Gawade led his evidence by filing affidavit. To give counterblow, opponent Nos.2&3 have filed affidavit of evidence. Both parties have relied on various documents. We have heard Learned Advocate Mr.P.Y. Shankar for complainants and Learned Advocate Mr.H.G. Misar for opponent Nos.1to3. Perused brief notes of arguments filed by opponents.
14. By keeping in mind the admitted facts, disputed facts and arguments advanced on behalf of both parties, let us proceed to appreciate evidence Page 8 of 16 CC/13/261 on record and to decide points for determination.
15. As to Point No.1(Jurisdiction) :- Opponents have raised objection to maintainability of consumer complaint before this Commission on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is urged that as per own submission of complainants agreed value of flat is Rs.4,65,207/-. Therefore, complainants should have filed consumer complaint before the District Forum. The consumer complaint filed before the State Commission is not tenable. The flat was booked in the year 1985 when total consideration agreed upon was Rs.4,65,207/-. We do not find any substance in this argument. While considering pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, we have to look into all prayers made by the complainants. Complainants have requested to declare the opponents as guilty of deficiency in service. They have made total claim of Rs.85,25,000/- from opponents. Alternatively, they have requested to direct the opponent Nos.1to3 to pay sum of Rs.65 Lakhs as per prevailing market value of the booked flat. Considering prayer clauses and valuation, we are of the view that the consumer complaint is tenable before this Commission. This Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the consumer complaint. As a result, we answer Point No.1 for determination in affirmative.
16. As to Point No.2 (Deficiency) :- Consumer complaint was filed by complainant-Babasaheb Gawade in the year 2013. During pendency of consumer complaint, Babasaheb Gawade died in the year 2015. Power of Attorney holder-brother of complainant, namely, Sambhaji Gawade died on 24/09/2017. Power of Attorney holder-Sambhaji Gawade is real brother of complainant. He was staying in the booked flat along with members of Hindu Undivided Family on the direction and permission of original complainant-Babasaheb Gawade. He was paying maintenance charges to the Society. Due to friendship of Power of Attorney holder Page 9 of 16 CC/13/261 Sambhaji Gawade with opponent No.2, flat No.402 was purchased by original complainant. In the year 1986 rate of flat was Rs.550/- per sq.ft. Booked flat was 715 sq.ft.
17. It is case of complainants that total amount of consideration was paid to opponent No.1 by deceased complainant-Babasaheb Gawade. Opponents have denied cash payment and payment of Rs.60,000/- made by cheques. It is tried to prove by complainants that deceased had paid amount of Rs.2,37,207/- by cheques during 05/11/1985 till 25/11/1992 and remaining amount was paid in cash. Payment of chart is given in the complaint. Payment is made as under :-
Cheque Date Cheque No. Cheque Amount
05/11/1985 349577 Rs.25,000/-
04/07/1986 949579 Rs.35,000/-
27/07/1986 035161 Rs.35,000/-
24/02/1987 319752 Rs.30,000/-
25/02/1987 193292 Rs.15,000/-
28/07/1987 18422 Rs.5,000/-
28/07/1987 319753 Rs.15,000/-
13/10/1987 319754 Rs.14,000/-
05/12/1987 319755 Rs.25,000/-
25/10/1988 319756 Rs.25,000/-
25/11/1992 319765 Rs.13,207/-
Total Rs.2,37,207/-
18. Complainants have relied upon payment receipts Exhibit-B. It is alleged that payment was made to opponent No.2. Receipt is handwritten and under the signature of opponent No.2. In receipt Exhibit-B there is a mention of cash payment amounting to Rs.2,13,000/- and cheque payment Page 10 of 16 CC/13/261 amounting to Rs.1,64,000/-. Date of payment and amount of payment are mentioned in receipt Exhibit-B. In Exhibit-B there is whisper that payment is against Block No.402 of Gaurav Corner at Mulund.
19. Opponent No.2 did not deny said receipt. He has not come forward to give his specimen handwriting. In affidavit of evidence there is no explanation pertaining to receipt Exhibit-B. Only there is an evasive denial about cash payment of Rs.2,28,000/- and cheque payment of Rs.60,000/-. Admittedly, flat was booked by complainant in the year 1985. Possession was given in the year 1992 by opponents to complainant. Demand was never made by the opponents for Rs.2,13,000/- from the complainants. Opponent No.2 never requested to send document Exhibit-B to Handwriting Expert to verify the creditability of said document. Opponent Nos.1to3 are dealing in business. Certainly, they would not keep mum on non-payment of huge amount of consideration by the complainant or occupier of the flat. Opponents have accepted payment of cheques except payment of Rs.60,000/-.
20. Opponents have denied payment under cheque bearing No.349577 dated 05/11/1985 for Rs.25,000/-. Said cheque was issued by Mr.Prakash B. Marale on behalf of complainant. Copy of cheque and counterfoil are filed on record at Exhibit-A1. Opponents did not file any document issued by Bank to show that said amount was never deposited in their account. There Bank account is in their custody and within their knowledge but they failed to file Bank Statement. Apart from that it is duty of the builder to maintain account of each customer independently as per provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963 (In short 'MOFA'). Opponents might have maintained the account in the name of complainant pertaining to flat No.402. Copy of said account does not find Page 11 of 16 CC/13/261 place on record. It is withheld. It is necessary to draw adverse inference.
21. It is case of the opponents that cheque No.949579 dated 04/07/1986 for Rs.35,000/- issued by the complainant was dishonoured. However, it is surprising to note that opponent Nos.1to3 till date i.e. for almost 28 years never issued any demand notice to complainants for demanding said amount covered under cheques. No action was taken against complainants for dishonour of cheque. Bank intimation is not filed to prove that cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured. Other cheques issued by complainant are duly honoured and encashed by the opponents. Opponent No.2 has filed receipts of payment in a Civil Suit filed by Mr.Desai against wife of Sambhaji Gawade. Certified copies of receipts are on record of this case.
22. The evidence and documents filed on record prove that amount of consideration is paid by the complainant to the opponents. Therefore, the opponents kept mum and never raised any demand for the remaining payment. The defence of the opponents that total amount of consideration is not paid by the complainant cannot be accepted.
23. Admittedly, opponents have not executed Agreement of Sale in respect of booked flat in favour of deceased Babasaheb Gawade or present complainants. As per section 4 of MOFA, duty is casted upon the opponents/builder to execute Agreement of Sale and get it registered. In spite of accepting advance payment /consideration, the opponents failed to execute Agreement and to register the same.
24. It is pleaded on behalf of opponents that the complainants have paid amount of 38% consideration only. It is admitted that more than 20% of sale price was received by the opponents. In view of section 4 of MOFA, the opponents/builders were duty bound to execute Agreement of Sale and to get it registered. Non-compliance of provisions of law and non-
Page 12 of 16CC/13/261 execution of the agreement in favour of the complainants amounts to deficiency in service.
25. The next objection on behalf of opponents is that there was inter-se dispute between complainant-Babasaheb Gawade and his brother- Sambhaji Gawade. Therefore, the opponents were in dilemma as to whom an Agreement of sale should be given. It is harped upon that original complainant-Babasaheb Gawade made part payment to the opponents. His brother-Sambhaji was asking for the Agreement of Sale in his favour. So as to avoid complication, Agreement of Sale was not executed and for this reason opponent no.4 society issued share certificate in favour of opponent no.1.
26. We do not find any substance in this argument. Nothing is on record to show that there was any dispute between complainant-Babasaheb Gawade and his brother-Sambhaji Gawade. With the permission of Babasaheb Gawade, his brother-Sambhaji Gawade was staying in booked flat along with members of Undivided Hindu Family. During life time complainant-Babasaheb Gawade never raised any objection to stay of Sambhaji Gawade in booked flat. On the contrary, his brother-Sambhaji Gawade was looking after maintenance of flat and paying amount of maintenance on behalf of complainant to the society. Late Babasaheb Gawade executed power of attorney in favour of brother-Sambhaji Gawade and authorized him to take all necessary steps for getting Agreement of Sale. Opponent nos.1, 2 & 3 so also the society i.e. opponent no.4 never demanded no objection or consent from complainant- Babasaheb Gawade for execution of Agreement of Sale in favour of Sambhaji Gawade. Opponents did not take steps to execute Agreement of Sale in favour of original complainant-Babasaheb Gawade, who made payment of consideration to the opponents through cheques. There was no Page 13 of 16 CC/13/261 hurdle for the opponents to execute Agreement of Sale in favour of original purchaser Babasaheb Gawade.
27. Opponent no.4 society accepted amount of maintenance from Sambhaji Gawade on behalf of complainant Babasaheb Gawade. Letter correspondence shows that notices of meetings were issued by the society to Sambhaji Gawade. The society never made an enquiry pertaining to Agreement of Sale from purchaser Babasaheb Gawade. Without holding any enquiry, share certificate was issued by opponent no.4 in favour of opponent no.1. Opponent no.4 society was having knowledge that brother of complainant and family members of the complainant are staying in flat and the subject flat is in occupation of them. Certainly, the society committed an error in issuing share certificate in favour of opponent no.1. In fact, flat was purchased by Babasaheb Gawade. Valid agreement was there in favour of opponent nos.1 to 3 and original complainant-Babasaheb Gawade. The opponent Nos.1to3 accepted consideration from Late Babasaheb Gawade. Fact was within their knowledge. It was for opponent nos.1 to 3 not to accept share certificate in the name of opponent no.1. Conduct of opponent nos.2 & 3 certainly is not fair.
28. Complainants have moved an application under RTI and sought information as mentioned in 'Exhibit E-1' (page 253 of complaint compilation). The information provided by the Government Information Officer shows that by submitting E form, Block no.402 was not shown as "unsold". In fact, the builder should have given information that flat was already sold to the complainant. Opponent no.4 has been addressing letters to Sambhaji Gawade in his capacity as member of opponent no.4. Letter correspondence dated 24/05/1994, 07/06/1996 and 24/06/1996 are at Exhibit G-1, G-2 and G-3 respectively. Complainant-Babasaheb Gawade had requested to issue share certificate in the name of Sambhaji Gawade Page 14 of 16 CC/13/261 by letter dated 02/01/2010, which is marked as 'Exhibit H'. Brother of the complainant namely, Sambhaji Gawade had obtained telephone connection, gas connection, electricity connection by quoting the address of booked flat. Name plate of his name was on the flat. Without stating sufficient reasons opponent no.4 orally submitted to late Sambhaji Gawade that his request for share certificate could not be entertained. Wrong information was provided to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies that flat is unsold and belongs to opponent nos.1 to 3. Information was collected by late Sambhaji Gawade by moving application under RTI vide application dated 04/05/2013. He got the information vide letter 'Exhibit E-1'.
29. Complainants are in continuous possession of booked flat. Maintenance bills are at 'Exhibit J'. The opponents have not come with clean hands before this Commission. They have adopted unfair trade practice. Opponents were knowing well that complainant-Babasaheb Gawade was owner of the flat. Still share certificate was issued in the name of opponent no.1. Notices issued to the complainants are not replied by the opponents. We find no hesitation to hold that the opponents are guilty of deficiency in service and for unfair trade practice. As a result, we answer point no.2 for determination in affirmative.
30. Complainants have duly proved that opponents are guilty of deficiency in service and for adopting unfair trade practice. Opponent nos.1, 2 & 3 are liable to execute registered Agreement of sale in respect of flat no.402 situated at Gaurav Corner CHS Ltd., Gaurav Corner Building, Navghar Road, Mulund (East), Mumbai-400 081 in favour of present complainants. Complainants have suffered mental pain and agony. They are entitled to claim compensation. They are entitled for an amount of Rs.1 Lakh towards compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.2 Page 15 of 16 CC/13/261 Lakhs for deficiency in service and an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation. They are not entitled for market value as flat is in their possession since 1992. With this view, we pass the following order:-
-: ORDER :-
1. Consumer complaint bearing no.CC/13/261 is hereby partly allowed.
2. Opponents are hereby declared as guilty of deficiency in service and for adopting unfair trade practice.
3. Opponent nos.1, 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to execute registered agreement for sale in respect to flat no.402 situated at Gaurav Corner CHS Ltd., Gaurav Corner Building, Navghar Road, Mulund (East), Mumbai-400 081 in favour of complainants.
4. Opponent nos.1 to 4 do jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.1 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh) towards compensation for mental pain and agony to the complainants.
5. Opponent nos.1 to 4 do jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs (Rupees two Lakhs) for deficiency in service to the complainants.
6. Opponent nos.1 to 4 do jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards costs of litigation to the complainant sand shall bear their own.
7. Free copies of order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 16th August 2018.
[ Usha S. Thakare ] PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER [ A. K. Zade ] MEMBER dd/Ms Page 16 of 16