State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Akshay Infrastructure Pvt Limited & ... vs Shri Dilip Shankar Kamble & Others on 20 September, 2019
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/15/1369
1.M/s.Akshay Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.
Through its Director
Mr.Suresh Rajaram Patkar
Regd.office at Flat no.102, first floor
Siddhivinayak CHS Ltd.
Tilak Nagar, Opp.Building no.53
Chembur, Mumbai 400 089
2. M/s.Akshay Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.
Through its Director
Mr.Suresh Rajaram Patkar
Having office at Flat no.202
Akshay Apartment
D.K.Sandhu Marg, Opp.Gala Motors
Chembur, Mumbai 400 071
3. M/s.Akshay Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.
Through its Director
Mr.Suresh Rajaram Patkar
Having its office at Ramnagari
Survey No.36/8, Ambegaon
Opp.Office of the Trimurti Mangal
Katraz-Dehu Road Bypass
Pune 411 046 ..... Appellants
Versus
1.Mr.Dilip Shankar Kamble
R/o.32/246, Laxminagar
Parvati, Pune-9
2.M/s.Sutlaj Builders & Promoters Pvt.Ltd.
S.No.36/08, Ambegaon B, Pune-46
3. Mr.Sanjay Kantilal Nahar
Director of M/s.Sutlaj Builders
S.No.11/A, Flat no.25
Om Gurudatt Society
1
Dhankavdi, Pune 43
4. Shriram Jagannath Bhise
Director of M/s.Sutlaj Builders
S.NO.36/08, Ambegaon B
Pune 46 .......Respondents
BEFORE: Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Dr.S.K.Kakade, Member
ORAL ORDER
Per Hon'ble Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
1. Mr.Mangesh Parte-Advocate i/b.Mr.Deepak Chitnis-Advocate with authority letter for appellants. Mr.Digambar Thakare-Advocate filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.1.
2. This appeal was part heard. We have completed hearing today. By this appeal appellants have questioned validity and legality of the impugned judgment and award dated 20/06/2015 passed by the Learned Additional District Forum, Pune, whereby the complaint was partly allowed and opponent nos.1 to 3 were directed jointly and severally to register agreement in favour of complainant in respect of shop no.12 and room cum godown no.3 upon accepting balance sum of Rs.2,43,800/- and also to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation costs. The order was directed to be complied within six weeks from the date of receipt of order passed by the Learned Forum below, failing which, opponents were directed to pay a penalty in the sum of Rs.1000/- per month to the complainant.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had booked shop no.12 together with adjacent room cum godown no.3 for total sum of Rs.1,40,000/- on 24/11/2001 from one M/s.Sutlaj Builders, who had delivered physical possession to the complainant. At that time it was agreed that all legal compliance will be made so as to register an agreement in favour of the 2 complainant. Meanwhile, M/s.Sutlaj Builders and Promoters Pvt.Ltd., who were originally impleaded as opposite party nos.4 & 5 had entered into an agreement with M/s.Akshay Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. at Ramnagari, Survey No.36/8, Ambegaon, Opp. Office of the Trimurti Mangal, Katraz-Dehu Road Bypass, Pune 411 046. Since they had entered into a Development Agreement, further steps were to be taken by the present appellants so as to execute registered agreement in favour of complainant upon acceptance balance sum of consideration.
4. Our attention has been invited to the written version which was on record before the Learned District Forum on behalf of opponent nos.5 & 6, in which there is clear admission in para 2 that the complainant had purchased a commercial shop bearing no.12 along with the adjacent room cum godown no.3, admeasuring about 190 & 139 sq.ft. respectively situated on the ground floor of the building in the complex known as Ramnagari, constructed on Survey No.36/8, Ambegaon Budruk, Taluka Haveli, District Pune.
5. According to learned advocate for appellants, there was no registered agreement between opponent nos.4 & 5 and the complainant-Mr.Dilip Shankar Kamble, though in the letter along with list of flats sold under registered/ unregistered agreements, name of complainant is figured for shop no.12 with room no.3 mentioning the remark registered agreement in front of name- Mr.Dilip Shankar Kamble. Thus upon the horse's mouth i.e.M/s.Sutlaj Builders in this case, appellants as successor in title to M/s.Sutlaj Builders cannot dispute their obligation to enter into a registered agreement with the complainant in respect of shop no.12 together with adjacent room cum godown no.3 as described above. Learned District Forum has mentioned that there was an agreement between M/s.Sutlaj Builders and complainant to execute registered agreement in favour of the complainant subject to legal compliance at the cost of complainant. But before the registered agreement could be executed in favour 3 of the complainant, M/s.Sutlaj Builders and Promoters informed the complainant that they have transferred their right to develop the said property to M/s.Akshay Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Complainant was thus left to contest his claim with the successor in title for registered agreement in respect of the shop and godown. In the year 2010, complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.2,54,700/- to the opponents so as to register an agreement in his favour. Complainant had agreed to do so as he was interested to get the registered agreement in his favour. However, opponent no.3 made an additional demand and claimed sum of Rs.4 lakhs from the complainant, though complainant had sent sum of Rs.2,54,700/- by cheque no.498689 dated 17/01/2013 of Rupee Co- op. Bank Ltd. and agreed to bear the expenses of registration of the agreement. Under these circumstances, complainant was constrained to file the complaint for registered agreement in his favour as also compensation, costs, etc. Meanwhile, since the project was transferred by M/s.Sutlaj Builders, though they admitted in clear terms in their written version to the effect that complainant had purchased commercial shop no.12 along with adjacent room cum godown no.3, as stated in para 2 of the written version filed by M/s.Sutlaj Builders on 30/07/2014, before the Learned District Forum, subsequently, they failed to appear. Even today M/s.Sutlaj Builders did not appear before this Commission.
6. In our view, when an immovable property is assigned or transferred in favour of successor in title, who is supposed to complete the project of construction of the building and to hand over possession of flat/shop, as the case may be, in favour of purchasers needs to obey the statutory obligation as contemplated under Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, which requires builder/developer/ promoter to construct the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan, to complete the same, to form a Co-operative Housing Society of flat purchasers or occupants, so that the land and the building can be handed over to the Co-operative Housing Society which can administer and manage the 4 building concerned. In view of this statutory obligation, which is implicit in the law, we are of the opinion that the Learned District Forum has rightly passed an award in favour of the complainant in the facts and circumstances of the case and no interference is warranted at our hands in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Hence, we dismiss the appeal. We grant further litigation costs in the sum of Rs.5000/- payable by the appellants to respondent no.1.
Pronounced on 20th September, 2019.
[Justice A.P.Bhangale] President [Dr.S.K.Kakade] Member Ms 5