State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shambhaji Narsingh Mali & Anr. vs M/S.Haware Engineer & Builders P. Ltd. on 3 December, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 2692 OF 2006 Date of filing : 19/12/2006 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 121 OF 2005 Date of order : 03/12/2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : THANE 1. Shambhaji Narsingh Mali 2. Sau. Shanta Sambhaji Mali Both r/at 18/A-302, Mhada Colony, Chandivali, Saki Naka, Mumbai-400 072. Appellants/org. complainants V/s. M/s.Haware Engineer & Builders P. Ltd. 416, Wardhaman Market, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Dist. Thane 400 705. Respondent/org. O.P. Corum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member Present:
Mr.A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Akhilesh Dube, Advocate for the respondent.
- : ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member The complainants themselves have filed this appeal aggrieved by the fact that his Complaint No.121/2005 has been dismissed by the District Consumer Forum Thane by its impugned order dated 21/11/2006.
The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
The complainants filed consumer complaint against the builder/developer M/s.Haware Engineers & Builders, Vashi, Navi Mumbai alleging deficiency in service and claimed compensation for mental agony and harassment. According to the complainants, they had booked shop under agreement dated 23/04/2003. Earlier agreement was cancelled and fresh agreement was entered into on 23/04/2003 for shop No.9. The complainants paid price of the shop in part. The builder then called upon the complainants to pay additional price of Rs.1,65,043/- by its letter dated 14/01/2004. According to the complainants this demand was illegal and amounted to harassment and therefore, the complainants sent registered notice through his Advocate on 25/06/2005 and called upon him to give break-up of certain amounts demanded by Haware builders. The break-up was not provided and therefore, the complainants filed consumer complaint in the Forum below and prayed for directing O.P./builder to submit details of other charges and also claimed compensation by way of interest from 15/08/2004 till filing of the complaint and also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for cost of denial of possession of the shop and Rs.25,000/- for loss of business, which they would have carried out in case they would have been given shop premises at the appointed time.
O.P. appeared and contested the claim by filing written statement. All the allegations of the complainants were denied by the O.P. O.P. pleaded that the complainants did not make balance amount. This was lame excuse put forth by the complainant to avoid agreed payment. There was no deficiency in service on their part. Shri Datta Katte, Marketing Manager of O.P. filed affidavit in evidence and certain documents were also placed on record. Last letter dated 14/11/2003 calling upon complainants was also taken on record.
The Forum below after hearing both the parties held that the complainants failed to establish or prove by cogent evidence that the O.P./Builder had caused deficiency in service and was pleased to dismiss the complaint. As such, the complainants have filed this appeal.
We have heard Mr.A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellants/org. complainants and Mr.Akhilesh Dube, Advocate for the respondent/builder.
It has been contended by the Counsel for the appellants that his clients were insisting the builder to give break-up of Rs.98,306/- demanded by the Haware Builders as other charges in their letter dated 14/01/2004. In our view, insistence by consumer/shop purchaser to give break-up of certain figures mentioned by the builder/developer was a reasonable demand made by the shop purchaser and builder was obliged in law to supply details of other charges allegedly sought to be collected by the builder/developer from the shop purchaser. There is nothing wrong on the part of the appellants in asking for details of other charges mentioned by the Haware builders in their letter because according to the appellants, as per agreement of sale, they had paid all the dues except the last installment payable at the time of handing over the possession of the shop. The appellants in their notice reply sent before filing of the complaint clearly admitted that they were ready to give remaining balance amount of consideration as per agreement. But, since Haware builders was asking amount of Rs.98,306/- they asked break-up of other charges and Haware builders clearly committed deficiency in service in not giving break-up of other charges claimed by them from the shop purchaser. The Forum below unnecessarily dismissed the complaint holding that O.P. was not guilty of deficiency in service. But, we are of the clear view that the Forum below clearly ignored the prayer made by the complainants in Para 11 of the complaint. He simply wanted break-up of other charges of Rs.98,306/- claimed by Haware Builders and we are of the view that not giving break-up of other charges per se amounted to deficiency in service on the part of respondent/O.P. and for this purpose the complaint ought to have been allowed because the poor consumer should not be kept in dark by the builder, when he asking any other amount than the agreed to be paid by the purchaser in terms of agreement executed between them. So, huge amount of more than Rs.98,000/- was asked by Haware Builders from the appellants and it was the duty of the Haware Builders to give break-up of the same and since break-up was not given, the complainants had not paid that amount. Therefore, till today, the builder has not given possession of the shop premises to the complainants/appellants herein. So, we are of the view that on the available material on record, it has been clearly established that respondent was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in withholding material information pertaining to demand made by the builder/developer and for this purpose, the complaint should have been allowed. But, since it has not been allowed, we are inclined to allow this appeal to give some reliefs to the complainants. In the circumstances, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1.
Appeal is allowed. The impugned dismissal order is quashed and set aside. The Complaint is allowed.
2. Respondent/builder is directed to furnish details of other charges (Rs.98,306/-) to the appellants/org. complainants within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
3. Respondent/builder is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for withholding giving of possession of shop premises to the appellants/org. complainants.
4. Respondent/builder is also directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the appellants/org. complainants and bear its own cost.
5. Respondent/builder is further directed not to impose any interest on the amount of Rs.98,306/- if appellants pays this amount within one month from the date of respondent/builder gives break-ups to the appellants.
6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member dd.