State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionM/S Sunit Enterprises vs Champakll N Jogi on 11 October, 2010Daily Order
  
 
 
 
 






 
            	



 



 
   
   
   


   
     
     
     

BEFORE THE
    HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 
    
   
    
     
     

COMMISSION,  MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
    
   
  
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     
       
       
       

First Appeal
      No. A/10/1081
      
     
      
       
       

(Arisen out
      of Order Dated  09/07/2010
      in Case No. 228/2004 of District Additional DCF, Mumbai(Suburban)) 
       

  
      
     
    
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     
       
       
       
         
         
         

1. M/S SUNIT ENTERPRISES 
        
       
        
         
         

OFFICE AT 7   DALVI  HOSPITAL
        S V  ROAD KANDIVILI WEST
        MUMBAI - 400 067
        
       
        
         
         

MUMBAI 
        
       
        
         
         

MAHARASHTRA 
        
       
        
         
         

2. SHRI HARESH MOHANLAL JOSHI 
        
       
        
         
         

PARTNER, M/S SUNIT ENTERPRISES RESIDING AT A/101   AMAZON  PARK JAYRAJ NAGAR BORIVILI WEST 
        
       
        
         
         

MUMBAI - 400 092.
        
       
        
         
         

MAHARASHTRA 
        
       
      
       

 
      
       
       

...........Appellant(s)
      
     
      
       
       

Versus
      
     
      
       
       
         
         
         

1. CHAMPAKLL N JOGI 
        
       
        
         
         

FLAT NO 903 SMRUTI  CHS
         LTD M G CROSS  ROAD NO 4 KANDIVALI WEST 
        
       
        
         
         

MUMBAI - 400
        067.
        
       
        
         
         

MAHARASHTRA 
        
       
      
       

 
      
       
       

...........Respondent(s)
      
     
    
     

 
    
   
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     

 BEFORE:
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
     
     

Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBERHon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
    
   
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     

 PRESENT:Ms.Rashmi Manne,Advocate, Proxy for U B WAVIKAR ,
    Advocate for the Appellant 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
     
     

  
    
   
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     

 ORDER 
     

  
    
   
    
     
     

 Per Shri S.R. Khanzode - Hon'ble Presiding Judicial
    Member:(1)This
    appeal is directed against the order dated  09/07/2010 passed in Consumer
    Coplaint No.228/2004, Champaklal N. Jogi V/s.Sunit Enterprises & Anr.
    by District Consumer Disptues Redressal Forum, Addl. Mumbai Suburban.(2)Undisputed
    facts are that, Respondent/original Complainant agreed to purchase a Flat
    No.202 in 'D'wing, Krisha Building No.2 for total consideration
    of Rs.17,00,000/-. On 10.04.2010 the
    flat purchaser had paid part consideration of Rs.8,50,000/-. Thereafter,
    since possession could not be delivered, alleging deficiency in service on
    the part of the builder, flat purchaser had filed this consumer complaint,
    praying relief of compensation for not completing his part of contract
    and/or alternatively claiming refund of consideration paid along with
    interest. Forum below awarded
    alternate relief directing refund of consideration along with interest @18%
    per annum. Feeling aggrieved thereby the Builder preferred this appeal.(3)We
    heard Ms.Rashmi Manne, Advocate, proxy for Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for
    the Appellant.(4)In
    the instant case it may be seen that Municipal Corporation of Greater
    Mumbai had issued a notice undersection 53(1)of Maharashtra Regional and
    Town Planning Act, 1956 dated
    26.12.2002 to the builder asking him to remove the unauthorized
    construction and to stop further construction work and if not, he would be
    liable for prosecution under the said Act.It is not the case of the builder that he had complied to the
    construction. Certainly, it is not the case of the builder that he
    had obtained occupation certificate.
    In fact said notice of the Corporation and for non-compliance
    thereof, no occupation certificate could be issued. In this background, the transaction
    remained incomplete. Builder cannot
    offer possession and also cannot obtain occupation certificate under the
    provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. In the circumstances, flat purchaser
    cannot be blamed as argued before us by the Appellants. Forum below instead of granting
    possession of the flat granted alternate relief and considering the
    escalation of price charging interest @18% per annum cannot be faulted
    with. Judicial discretion used by the
    Forum below granting alternate relief also cannot be faulted with. Therefore, we find no reason to take
    different view than what has been taken by the Forum below. We hold accordingly and pass the
    following order:O R D
    E R(i)       Appeal stands dismissed in limine.(ii)      
    No order as to
    costs.Pronounced 
   

Dated  the
   11th October, 2010.[Hon'ble Mr.
    S.R. Khanzode]
    
   
    
     
     

PRESIDING MEMBER 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

  
     

  
     

[Hon'ble Mr.
    Dhanraj Khamatkar]
    
   
    
     
     

Member 
     

     

  
     

ep