State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri.Barendranath Rajendranath ... vs Shri.Suhas Ratnakar More on 5 January, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR Complaint Case No. CC/16/35 1. SHRI.NILKANTH SHANKAR MUNJAMKAR R/O.BABUPETH CHANDRAPUR CHANDRAPUR MAHARSHTRA ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. SHRI.SUHAS RATNAKAR MORE THE DIRECTOR M/S REVATI ASSOCIATES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. R/O REVATI ASSOCIATES, 52-A, WEST HIGH COURT ROAD LAXMI NAGAR SQUARE NAGPUR-22 NAGPUR MAHARSHTRA ............Opp.Party(s) Complaint Case No. CC/16/36 1. SHRI.BARENDRANATH RAJENDRANATH MUJUMDAR R/O.MAHADA COLONEY,CHANDRAPUR CHANDRAPUR MAHARSHTRA ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. SHRI.SUHAS RATNAKAR MORE THE DIRECTOR M/S REVATI ASSOCIATES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. R/O REVATI ASSOCIATES, 52-A, WEST HIGH COURT ROAD LAXMI NAGAR SQUARE NAGPUR-22 NAGPUR MAHARSHTRA ............Opp.Party(s) Complaint Case No. CC/16/37 1. SHRI.NIRANJAN JIWAN MALAKAR KRUSHNA NAGAR,MUL ROAD CHANDRAPUR MAHARSHTRA ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. SHRI.SUHAS RATNAKAR MORE THE DIRECTOR M/S REVATI ASSOCIATES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. R/O REVATI ASSOCIATES, 52-A, WEST HIGH COURT ROAD LAXMI NAGAR SQUARE NAGPUR-22 NAGPUR MAHARSHTRA ............Opp.Party(s) Complaint Case No. CC/16/38 1. SHRI.DEVENDRAKUMAR MOTIRAM DHAKATE MAHAKALI COLLIERY,CHANDRAPUR CHANDRAPUR MAHARSHTRA ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. SHRI.SUHAS RATNAKAR MORE THE DIRECTOR M/S REVATI ASSOCIATES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. R/O REVATI ASSOCIATES, 52-A, WEST HIGH COURT ROAD LAXMI NAGAR SQUARE NAGPUR-22 NAGPUR MAHARSHTRA ............Opp.Party(s) Complaint Case No. CC/16/42 1. SHRI.INDRAJEET SAKHANATH SAHA CHOUHAN COLONY,MUL ROAD,CHANDRAPUR,TAH &DIST CHANDRAPUR CHANDRAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. SHRI.SUHAS RATANAKAR MORE THE DIRECTOR M/S REVATI ASSOCIATES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. R/O REVATI ASSOCIATES, 52-A, WEST HIGH COURT ROAD LAXMI NAGAR SQUARE NAGPUR-22 NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal MEMBER For the Complainant: Mr A U Kullarwar, Advocate For the Opp. Party: Exparte Dated : 05 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Member
1. These five complaints are filed by the respective complainant against the same opposite party seeking identical reliefs and therefore all these five complaints are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The common case of the complaints in these five complaints as set out by them in their respective complaint in brief is as under.
The opposite party is the Director of M/s Revati Associates Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. He offered to sell the plots of the layout map for specific consideration as stated in detail in Para No.2 of each complaint. The complainants were desirous of purchasing the plots from the said layout. Therefore, each of them separately entered into agreement to purchase from the opposite party the plots as specified in detail in each of the complaint. The complainants in four complaint Nos.CC/16/35 to CC/16/38 had agreed to purchase plot Nos.22, 23, 02 & 18 respectively for a consideration of Rs.22,60,440/- each. The complainant in one complaint No.CC/16/42 agreed to purchase two plots bearing Nos.24 & 25 for total consideration of Rs.60,27,840/-. The aforesaid five complainants respectively paid part of consideration of Rs.12.01 Lacs, Rs.10.01 Lacs, Rs.3.50 Lacs, Rs.6.00 Lacs & Rs.8.00 Lacs in instalments. They made last payment respectively on 23.07.2014, 29.04.2014, 08.08.2014, 29.09.2014 & 31.12.2013. They requested the opposite party from time to time to accept the balance consideration and to execute the sale-deed. The opposite party had written letter on different dates to the respective complainant stating therein that he would execute the sale-deed within three months from the date of that letter. Thereafter also it did not execute the sale-deed. Therefore, lastly the complainants issued notice dtd.22.02.2016 to the opposite party calling upon it to execute the sale-deed. The said notice was received by the opposite party. Thereafter also the opposite party did not execute the sale-deed. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, the aforesaid five complaints are filed these five complaints seeking the common reliefs as below.
i. The opposite party shall execute the sale-deed of the aforesaid respective plot in favour of the respective complainant and if it is not possible due to some technical reason to execute the sale-deed then he shall refund the aforesaid part consideration to the respective complainant with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of agreement.
ii.The opposite party shall also pay to each of the complainant compensation of Rs.1.00 Lacs for physical & mental harassment.
iii.The opposite party shall also pay to each of the complainant litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
3. This Commission after hearing the advocate of the complainants admitted all these complaints on 24.06.2016 and thereupon notices were issued to the opposite party in each of the complaint. All the said notices were returned un-served with postal endorsement as "Left".
4. Thereafter as per permission granted by this Commission to the advocate of the complainant, notices were published in local newspaper namely "Dainik Bhaskar" as issued by this Commission. The advocate of the complainant produced the issue of the said newspaper in which the notices have been published. Upon going through the notices published in the said newspaper, the Commission found that notices have been duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party failed to appear despite service of notice. Therefore, as per order dtd.31.10.2017 passed by this Commission, all these complaints are proceeded exparte against the opposite party.
5. We have heard advocate Mr A U Kullarwar appearing for the complainants today. We have also perused the entire record & proceedings of these five complaints.
6. Each of the complainants filed copies of the following documents in support of each complaint.
i. Agreement to sell ii. Payment receipts issued by the opposite party on receiving above payments from the complainant. iii. Letters written by the opposite party to the complainants stating that the sale-deed will be executed in favour of the complainants.
iv.Notices issued by the advocate of the complainant to the opposite party calling upon the opposite party to execute the sale-deed and to pay compensation.
v.Postal receipts under which the notices were issued to opposite party by complainants.
vi.Acknowledgement showing that the said notices were duly received by the opposite party.
The respective complainants also filed affidavit by way of rejoinder in support of each complaint.
Advocate of the complainants also filed Written Notes of Arguments in each of the complaint.
7. We find that the aforesaid documents fully support the above case of each of the complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve the allegations made in the complaint and the documents filed on record by the respective complainant, particularly when the opposite party chose to remain absent despite service of notice. Thus, the entire material went unchallenged.
8. Learned advocate of the complainants relied on common decision of this Commission in two appeal bearing Nos.A/14/07 & A/14/10 in the case of Uma Tularam Bhaisare & Narayan Bhauji Bhasarkar Vs. Pratik Sagar Dambhare, dtd.10.02.2017.
9. It is, thus, proved from the aforesaid agreement and documents filed on record that though the opposite party, as per agreement, agreed to sell the aforesaid plots for aforesaid consideration to the respective complainant and though he received part of the consideration from each of complainant and though the complainants were and are ready to pay balance consideration and to obtain sale-deeds, the opposite party avoided to execute the sale-deed and to give possession of the respective plots. Hence, it is proved that the opposite party rendered deficient service to the complainants. Therefore, all these five complaints deserve to be partly allowed.
ORDER i. All these five complaints bearing Nos.CC/16/35 to CC/16/38 and CC/16/42 are partly allowed as under.
ii. It is directed that the opposite party shall execute the sale-deed of the respective plot described in the respective complaint in favour of the respective complainant by accepting balance consideration as per respective agreement, from respective complainant.
iii. The complainants shall bear expenses of execution of registered sale-deeds.
iv. If the opposite party, for any technical reasons, unable to execute the sale-deeds as above in favour of the complainants, it shall refund to the respective complainant the part of consideration that is Rs.12.01 Lacs, Rs.10.01 Lacs, Rs.3.50 Lacs, Rs.6.00 Lacs, Rs.8.00 Lacs with 12% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the complaints i.e. from 29.04.2016 till realisation of the said amount by respective complainant.
v. Moreover, if the sale-deeds cannot be executed due to any legal hurdle, in addition to the refund of the aforesaid amounts with interest, the opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.1.00 Lac towards physical & mental harassment and also towards economic loss to each of the complainant.
vi. The opposite party shall also pay to each of the complainant litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
vii. Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost. [HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal] MEMBER