(Delivered on 24/06/2019)

PER MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE, HON’BLE PRESIDENT.

1.         Heard, complainant in person.  According to him, he had booked  flat No. 201 situated  at second floor of the building  of ARK Sapphire Apartments, situated at  plot No. 9 holding in Malik Makbuza  Rights,  in the sanctioned lay out  of Ahabad Co-operative  Housing  Society Ltd., Nagpur   having built up area  of  43.40 sq. mts.  (Super  built up area of 68.93 sq. mts.) together   with undivided share and  interest  in  Malikmakbuza rights of the said  plot of land with total  plot area admeasuring  about 270 sq. mts.  being the portion of   entire Kh. No. 5 , Mouza Police Line Takli, Tahsil and District Nagpur, Corporation House No. 340/A/9, Ward No. 61, City Survey No. 212, Sheet No. 532/6-8 within the limits of Nagpur  Municipal  Corporation and Nagpur  Improvement Trust . This apartment  is bounded  on East  plot No. 10 and common area , on the West  plot No. 8 and common area,  on the  North  residential  apartment No. 202 and on the  South common area and 9 mts. wide layout   road   ( Page No. 13 description ). 

2.         The complainant  had contacted  to the O.P.- M/s. ARK Developers and O.P.Nos. 1&2 in order to  book the flat described  as aforesaid  having  paid earnest money in the amount of Rs.80,000/- by cheque  bearing No.  188516, dated 19/09/2014 drawn on ICICI Bank, Nagpur. Thereafter   the complainant  had paid entire  consideration amount  as mentioned  in tabular details  in para No. 4 of the complaint. The amounts were paid  from time to time aggregating   total sum of Rs. 33,16,000/-  during  the period between  18/09/2014 to 07/04/2017. It is the case of the complainant  that  he had  to  obtain  loan  in  order to complete  the transaction  of sale  of the aforesaid  flat and paid  the entire  price  as agreed. The grievance of the complainant  is that  despite   completion  of the construction  of  the building   the O.P. did not obtain  occupancy permission  so as to  complete the building in accordance with law and to place   the complainant  in physical  and lawful possession for  the aforesaid  flat despite  the  fact that  entire  consideration  amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- with additional  sum of  amount Rs. 1,16,000/- has been  paid to the O.P.  after raising   the amount  by way of loan  from Tata Capital Housing  Finance Ltd.  It is thus contended  that the O.P. ought  to complete the construction  in accordance  with law as per sanctioned  plan and to obtain  the occupation  certificate  from the local authority  concerned. The O.P. indulged  into deficiency  in service  and unfair  trade practice as they did not   put complainant in actual lawful  and  physical possession  of the flat. They have not bothered  about the installation  of the lift  in the building  so as to  complete  the building  in accordance with law.

3.         The evidence affidavit  was tendered  on behalf of the O.P. Their  affidavit  in evidence admitted the fact that   apartment No. 201 was agreed to be sold. However,  they  denied that  it was for consideration  of 32,00,000/-  only. They claimed sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- was consideration  while  they agreed that  sum of Rs. 32,00,000/- has already been  paid. The additional amount  of Rs. 1,16,000/- paid was also denied. Further   according  to the O.P. they  contended that  partners of the O.P. had  good relations  with the complainant  and  therefore  they  had rendered all possible helps  to the  complainant  for obtaining  finance while reducing  the cost  of agreement  to sum of  Rs. 32,00,000/- only  for saving the stamp duty and other  expenses at the request  of the complainant.  Further  they contended that  they have returned an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by  cheque   and Rs. 2,00,000/-   by cash to the complainant  since  the complainant  shown his  inability  and  deficiency  to pay the stamp duty.

4.         The complainant  had as denied the above  contention  in the affidavit  made by the O.P. on the ground that  the O.P. has been  trying to avoid  their  obligation to perform  their part of agreement  so as to  put   the complainant in lawful   physical possession  of the flat and  to  transfer  the said to the complainant  in accordance with law. The statutory obligations as contemplated under the Maharashtra Ownership  of Flats Act 1963 were not  performed by  O.P.

5.         Having heard the submission at the bar as also seen photographs produced on behalf of the complainant indicating that the O.P.  has failed  to complete the  building  in accordance with law. We do  not find  any  certificate  by  the Architecture or Structural  Engineer  to indicate that  the building  was completed  in accordance with law nor we find  any   occupancy  certificate  produced  on behalf of the O.P.  The contentions  of the O.P. prima facie  in  the reply, affidavit  appears  after thought  to invent  just a ploy   to avoid  the  completion of transaction  of sale in favour of the  complainant.  We therefore pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          The complaint  is partly allowed.

ii.          It is declared that  the O.P. indulged  in  deficiency in service  and  has adopted unfair  trade practice  to delay the transaction  of sale of the  flat in favour of the complainant   by its omission to  obtain  completion  certificate /occupancy  certificate  to transfer the  flat in favour  of the  complainant.

iii.         We direct the O.P. and their  partners to execute  the registered  sale deed in favour of the complainant  in respect of  flat described  in para No. 1 above  and to  hand over lawful and  vacant  physical possession of the flat No. 201 and to  complete the construction  of the building  in accordance  with  sanctioned  plan and obtain the  completion  certificate  and occupancy  certificate.

iv.        Stamp duty and registration  charges  payable  in  respect of transaction  of sale  shall be borne  by the complainant. 

v.         The O.P. shall  also pay compensation for  not completed  transaction  within  time as per agreement  and to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- in each month  delay  from the date of  the complaint until  the  complainant  in actual  physical possession of the flat.

vi.        The O.P. shall  also  pay compensation  for causing  mental and physical  harassment  and financial harassment  to the  complainant  in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and to pay litigation cost in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.

vii.        In case the above directions are not complied within 90 days  the amount outstanding  dues as above  shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a.   till the  actual realization  of the amount.

            Later on Adv. Mrs. S.K. Pounikar appeared for the  complainant.