Jagdish P Shenai vs Aditya Builders

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal Nos. 29 of 2012 and 45 of 2012 Aditya Builders Vs. Jagdish P. Shenai and Anr. and Shri Vijay Sawardekar Vs. Jagdish P. Shenai by which, while dismissing appeal No. 45 of 2012 Appeal No. 29 of 2012 was allowed and order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainants/petitioners entered into an agreement for sale of villa with OP/respondents on 10.11.2001 for consideration of Rs.10,10,000/ - and possession was to be given on 31.8.2002. Complainant paid money and paid Rs.90,000/ - on 23.3.2002 and balance Rs.10,000/ - was to be paid at the time of possession, but upon insistence of OP, Rs.20,000/ - were paid on 20.10.2002. It was further submitted that construction work was not complete, but possession of incomplete villa was taken on 12.11.2002 for opening ceremony on 13.11.2002. Temporary water and electricity connections were also provided. Complainant vide letter dated 25.11.2002 apprised OP about incomplete work and complainant left the villa, inspite of that OP did not complete the work and disconnected temporary water and electricity connections. Complainant received letter dated 10.12.2002 from OP claiming amount of Rs.29,624/ - mentioning that possession had never been given to the complainants. Complainants responded later and denied delay in making payments and pointed out deficiency in the construction. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that occupancy certificate dated 12.4.2002 shows that construction was complete and there was no delay in construction. It was further submitted that complainant made payment of Rs.90,000/ - on 23.9.2002, 20,000 on 20.10.2001 and Rs.29,624/ - on 19.2.2003 which caused delay in handing over possession. It was further submitted that complainant requested OP for additional work for which Rs.29,624/ - were charged. Other defects were denied. It was further submitted that area of balcony included in bed room as per request of complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.29,624/ - with 9% p.a. interest and further to pay 9% p.a. interest on 10,20,000/ - from 25.10.2002 to 31.3.2003 and further to pay Rs.9,000/ - cost incurred in putting aluminum window and OP was directed to complete pending work as listed in the complaint at Item No. 1, 2 and 3 of prayer clause and further awarded Rs.5,000/ - as costs. Both the OPs filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission while dismissing appeal of OP No. 2 as misconceived, appeal filed by OP No.1 was allowed and complaint was dismissed by impugned order against which these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. As there is delay of only 16 days in filing revision petition, delay stands condoned.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of proof of deficiency in construction and delayed possession, learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petitions be dismissed.

LEARNED State Commission by a detailed order has discussed every aspect of the complaint and rightly observed that as payment was not made by the complainant within the stipulated period, possession was delayed, though, as per occupancy certificate dated 12.4.2002 building was complete. Admittedly, complainant did not make payment within stipulated time provided in the agreement and as payments were delayed, OP has not committed any deficiency in delaying possession of the villa.

LEARNED State Commission rightly observed that complainant purposely denied receipt of possession on 12.11.2002 because complaint was filed on 30.3.2005 which would have been time barred, though, possession had already been taken by complainant on 12.11.2002 for inaugural ceremony on 13.11.2002.

LEARNED State Commission after referring correspondence between the parties rightly observed that complainant never objected about demand of Rs.29,624/ - which expenses were incurred by OP in extra works and rightly set aside order of District Forum for refund of Rs.29,624/ -. Learned State Commission rightly observed in the order that area of balcony was included in the bed room at the request of complainant; hence, there was no question of providing balcony. As far not providing tiles in the garage, learned State Commission rightly relied on affidavit of OP in which he has mentioned that red tiles have been provided in the garage. Learned State Commission rightly observed that there was no incomplete work regarding boundary wall and rightly allowed appeal.

I do not find any illegality, irregularly or jurisdiction error in the impugned order and revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.