ARUN MAHADEV NAIK vs SHASHI NANDKISHORE JULKA

APPELLANT, builder was opposite party before the State Commission. He is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission allowing the complaint of the respondents-complainants and directing appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- paid by the complainants with interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs. 32,250/- as damages with interest and Rs. 10,000/- as costs.

COMPLAINANT entered into an agreement dated 25.5.1998 with the appellant, builder for purchase of two flats to be built by the appellant in the complex called ''Sai Apartments''. The agreed price of the two flats was Rs. 8,25,000/-. A sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- was to be paid on the execution of the agreement and balance of Rs. 6,05,000/- in monthly instalments of Rs. 10,000/- each. However, by subsequent modification of the agreement complainants were required to pay Rs. 1,40,000/- as initial payment which was made. Appellant had agreed to hand over the possession of the flats by December, 1998. COMPLAINANTs, it would appear, did not pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as they found that there was no progress whatsoever in the construction of the flats. However, subsequently again complainants agreed to pay Rs. 85,000/- which they did pay. Thus the complainants made a total payment of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the appellant towards price of the two flats. Again there was a default in construction and when the complainants insisted for refund of the amount with interest appellant gave a bearer cheque for Rs. 25,000/- which was returned dishonoured. Complainants had to hire a flat on lease for the period till appellant handed over possession of the built up flats in Sai Apartments. For hire of separate accommodation complainants had to pay Rs. 3,750/- as licence for two months which was enhanced to Rs. 4,125/- for six months. Complainants in the complaint thus prayed for refund of the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum and also Rs. 32,250/- being the licence fee paid by them with interest @ 18% per annum. They also prayed for cost of the litigation.

After completion of the pleadings evidence was allowed to be led by means of affidavit. State Commission upheld the claim of the complainants and directed the appellant to refund to them the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date when each of the instalments were paid till realisation of the full amount. Appellant was also directed to pay the amount of Rs. 32,250/- with the same rate of interest till realisation. As noted above, cost of Rs. 10,000/- was also allowed to be paid to the complainants. Aggrieved from this order of the State Commission, builder has filed this appeal.

IT is a case where the appellant failed to honour its commitment for building of the flats for the complainants. The fact that the appellant agreed to refund the amount of the initial price received stands fully established by the fact that the appellant gave cheque for Rs. 25,000/- to the complainants. Surprisingly the cheque was returned as dishonoured. Since appellant failed to return the money with interest as demanded by the Complainants and also the amount of the licence fee paid for the flats hired by the complainants the complaint was filed. State Commission dismissed the argument of the appellant that 80% of the construction had been completed. State Commission in fact examined the photographs of the state of construction and was of the firm view that the project of Sai Apartments where the flats were agreed to be sold to the complainants showed that it was in abundant and deserted state.

AFTER examining the order of the State Commission and other documents which have been brought on record we are unable to find any error in the reasoning of the State Commission for us to take a different view. State Commission rightly allowed the complaint and directed refund of the two amounts aforesaid with interest. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.