2. Petitioners were the complainants before the District Forum. They alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, in that the respondents had failed to execute the agreement for sale even after the complainants had made full payment of the consideration for the flats and received the possession thereof from the respondents. The respondents/opposite parties (OPs) resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that the cost of construction had risen steeply leading to their demand for escalation charges at the rate of Rs.200/- per square foot and that each of the complainants had not paid Rs.2,40,000/- towards the original agreed sale price of the flat.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.3129 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in First Appeal no. A/09/941) Ankit Bhatnagar C/o P. K. Bhatnagar Petitioner Resident of 25, Panvel Co-operative Industrial Estate Panvel - 410206 versus 1. Vijay Constructions 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Respondents 2. Vijay Angre 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai REVISION PETITION NO.3130 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in First Appeal no. A/09/941) Vishal Bhatnagar C/o P. K. Bhatnagar Petitioner Resident of 25, Panvel Co-operative Industrial Estate Panvel – 410206 versus 1. Vijay Constructions 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Respondents 2. Vijay Angre 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai REVISION PETITION NO.3131 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in First Appeal no. A/09/942) Mrs. G.P. Bhatnagar C/o P. K. Bhatnagar Petitioner Resident of 25, Panvel Co-operative Industrial Estate Panvel – 410206 versus 1. Vijay Constructions 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Respondents 2. Vijay Angre 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai REVISION PETITION NO.3132 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Mumbai State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata in First Appeal no. A/09/939) Ms. Priyanka Bhatnagar C/o P. K. Bhatnagar Petitioner Resident of 25, Panvel Co-operative Industrial Estate Panvel - 410206 versus 1. Vijay Constructions 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Respondents 2. Vijay Angre 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER For the Petitioners Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate Pronounced on 4th January 2012 ORDER ANUPAM DASGUPTA These revision petitions are directed against the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeals no. A/ 09/940, A/ 09/941, A/09/942 and A/09/939. The State Commission dismissed each of these appeals though the Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (in short, ‘the District Forum’) had, by its common order dated 21.05.2009, partially allowed the complaints. As the facts underlying each revision petition/appeal/complaint are more or less identical except the names of the petitioner/complainant, these revision petitions are being dealt with by this common order. 2. Petitioners were the complainants before the District Forum. They alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, in that the respondents had failed to execute the agreement for sale even after the complainants had made full payment of the consideration for the flats and received the possession thereof from the respondents. The respondents/opposite parties (OPs) resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that the cost of construction had risen steeply leading to their demand for escalation charges at the rate of Rs.200/- per square foot and that each of the complainants had not paid Rs.2,40,000/- towards the original agreed sale price of the flat. 3. On consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record by the parties, the District Forum directed the OPs to jointly and severally execute the agreement for sale on each complainant by paying the balance consideration for the flat in question. The District Forum further awarded to each complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost. 4. Aggrieved by the directions to pay the balance cost to the OPs, each complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission with the result already noticed. 5. We have heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar and gone through the documents brought on record. The State Commission dismissed each appeal mainly on the grounds that the letter dated 26.05.1995 issued by the respondents/OPs acknowledging the receipt of payment, but did not state that the amount had been received towards the payment of the cost of the flat in question. 6. The letters in question, each dated 26.05.1995 and addressed to the respective complainant/petitioner, read as under: RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Received Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) cheque no. 292546 dated 23/05/1995 from Master Ankit Bhatnagar as a friendly loan with interest 2% per month for the period of six months from today. I am bound to repay the amount to Master Ankit Bhatnagar within stipulated time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For M/s Vijay Constructions [Proprietor] RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Received Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) cheque no. 292698 dated 23/05/1995 from Master Vishal Bhatnagar as a friendly loan with interest 2% per month for the period of six months from today. I am bound to repay the amount to Master Vishal Bhatnagar within stipulated time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For M/s Vijay Constructions [Proprietor] RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Received Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) cheque no. 292721 dated 23/05/1995 from Mrs. G.P. Bhatnagar as a friendly loan with interest 2% per month for the period of six months from today. I am bound to repay the amount to Mrs. G.P. Bhatnagar within stipulated time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For M/s Vijay Constructions [Proprietor] RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Received Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) cheque no. 292572 dated 23/05/1995 from Kumari Priyanka Bhatnagar as a friendly loan with interest 2% per month for the period of six months from today. I am bound to repay the amount to Kumari Priyanka Bhatnagar within stipulated time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For M/s Vijay Constructions [Proprietor]” 7. It is thus crystal clear that these payments were made prior to the letters dated 14.07.1999 written by the respondents confirming the agreement to sell a flat to each of the complainants in “Siddhi Apartments”. Further, as correctly held by the State Commission, none of the receipts, even by implication, suggests that the payment of Rs.2,40,000/- was in any way connected with either any ongoing or future construction by the respondents. 8. In view of this, there is no ground for us to interfere with the impugned orders of the State Commission. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, on request, the petitioners are granted the liberty to seek redressal (in respect of recovery of the acknowledged loan amount and interest in each case) before the appropriate civil court, if so advised and also seek the benefit of the Supreme Court’s ruling in similar context in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v P. S. G. Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583. Sd/- …………………………………. [Anupam Dasgupta] Presiding Member Sd/- …………………………………. [Suresh Chandra] Member Satish