State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S S P Developers vs Shri Narendra Rameshwar Mishra & Anr on 7 September, 2011
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/11/709
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 30/06/2011 in Case No. 130/2010 of District Pune)
1. M/S S P DEVELOPERS
THROUGH PROPRIETOR SHRI RAJENDRA BALASAHEB MARWADI
SURVEY NO 132 URALI DEVACHI TALUKA HAVELI
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SHRI NARENDRA RAMESHWAR MISHRA
R/AT 101 MARATHA LIFE INGANTRY BATTALION (RA) PUNE 1
PUNE
2. M/S.SAI CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS PARTNER
SHRI RAJESH BHIRE
3. M/S.RITESH BHIRE
RESPONDENT NOS.2&3 ARE R/O.MANTERWADI FATA
NEAR DURGA
TEMPLE, HANDEWADI
GAON
URALI DEVACHI, TALUKA HAVELI, DISTRICT PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENT
Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
PRESENT:
Mr.Suhas Deokar
......for the Appellant
ORDER
Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Honble President Heard Mr.Suhas Deokar-Advocate for the appellant.
This appeal is directed as against the decision of Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.130/2010. It was decided on 30/06/2011. By this order complaint filed by the respondent no.1 has been partly allowed and the appellant has been directed to provide electric meter and give possession of 800 sq.ft. flat without charging anything for the conveyance. As stated in the MOU dated 11/08/2008 appellant has been also directed to give monthly compensation of `25,000/- from 11/08/2010 till delivery of actual possession and by way of cost of the complaint amount of `5,000/- has been awarded. Being aggrieved by this order, original opponent who is builder and developer has preferred this appeal. MOU is on record. Land has been given for the development by the respondent and in consideration of that appellant has agreed to provide one flat bearing no.101.
Since the said flat has not been given the complaint was filed. MOU between the parties is not disputed.
Attempt has been made to point out that the said document is without any consideration and thereby to contend that the agreement or contract is without consideration is not enforceable in law. However, this contention though appears to be very attractive is without any merits. Definition of consideration as revealed from the Contract Act contemplates promise to perform a particular act or abstinence as agreed between the parties.
Cash payment is one of the factors.
However, in every case it is not expected that it should be a cash payment. Even act and abstinence to perform a particular act or not to perform particular act is a consideration under the law. In the present case land has been given to the appellant for development on consideration that the appellant will give one flat admeasuring 800 sq.ft. built up area to the original complainant. Therefore it is not a contract or agreement without consideration but it is a contract with a valid consideration on record. No other circumstance like misrepresentation, undue influence, coercion and/or contract against public policy has been advanced and/or submitted before us so as to held that MOU is void or voidable. Therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was justified in directing possession of the flat and also monthly compensation. In fact agreement contemplates that if the development is not carried out as agreed within a period of 18-24 months and/or possession is not given as agreed, compensation of `8,00,000/- per month as against that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has only granted `25,000/-. There is no other point before us. Under these circumstances by passing agreement District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has reduced monthly compensation. Under these circumstances, it is a case wherein appellant/developer should not have filed the appeal. However in spite of that appeal has been preferred and tried to be argued at length by the Ld.counsel. Under these circumstances, we reject the appeal with cost of `15,000/- to be paid to the opponents in addition to the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Pronounced on 07th September, 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase] PRESIDENT [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER Ms.