K. UMESH RAO vs COMFORT HOMES

- IN this complaint the has sought a sum of Rs. 5,14,169/- as compensation towards loss and mental agony suffered by him for denial and deficiency of service rendered by the , the Builder.

MRS. Duropadi S. Kalro and S.L. Kalro purchased and got allotted a flat bearing No. 2 A on the 2nd Floor of Rajmahal Apartments together with 1 /35th undivided share in the land and an enclosed Garage No. 9 as per and under the terms of agreement Ex. C.2 on 5-7-1980. The Complainant purchased the said flat from Mrs. Duropadi Kalro and Kalro while the said flat was under construction under agreement Ex. C.1 on 22-9-1991 with the consent and approval of the builder, the Opposite Party.

The Complainant under the said agreement agreed to pay the balance amount payable to the Builder by the original purchaser Kalro.

THE Complainant made payment of the said entire amount of Rs. 84,057/- to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party as per their representation under Ex. C.3 had agreed to-hand over the possession of the flat fully constructed by 20. 11.1991. But the Complainant was able to occupy the same only in the month of August 1992.

THE Complainant further averred that the Opposite Party failed to complete the construction of the flat but at the time of handing over the possession of the flat asked the Complainant to get it completed at his own cost. THE Complainant were to spend a sum of Rs. 74,141/- towards the completion of the construction. Complainant also averred that he had spent a sum of Rs. 1,872/-for making payment of arrears to get the supply of electricity to his apartment. Complainant nextly averred that the Opp. Party has failed to register the necessary deed in favour of the Complainant.

THE Complainant on the basis of these averments sought a sum of Rs. 5,14,169/- as compensation on various counts and also sought a direction to Opp. Party to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the Complainant and direction to allot car shed No. 9, as agreed.

THE Opposite Parties though served remained absent. THEy were placed ex-parte. During enquiry the Complainant filed his affidavit and got Ex. C.1 to C.44 marked.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and perused the averments in the complaint and the affidavit of the Complainant.

AS per Ex. C.2 the Opp. Party had agreed to allot Flat 2A along with garage No. 9 to Smt. Duropadi S. Kalro and Sri. S.L. Kalro. Under the same agreement Ex. C.2, Opp. Party had agreed to transfer the rights of Kalro in Flat 2A along with garage No. 9 in favour of Complainant on 22-9-1991.

AS per Ex. C.3 The Opp. Party had on receipt of balance consideration amount of Rs. 84,057/- from the Complainant agreed to hand over the possession of the said flat in favour of the Complainant by 20th November, 1991. As per the Complainant he was able to get delivery of the said flat only in the month of August, 1992. The Complainant paid the said amount of Rs. 84,057/- to the Opp. Party. Even then he was able to get only half finished flat and he was to spend an amount of Rs. 74,141/- towards completion of the said construction so as to make the flat ready for living.

THE complainant has produced various bills Ex. C.7 to C.44 in support of the materials purchased by him and bills for labour charges and has claimed a sum of Rs. 74,141 /- on this account.

THESE circumstances would go to show that the service rendered by the Opp. Party was defective and it was not what was represented by the Opp. Party. It would be clearly an unfair trade practice and would clearly constitute a deficiency of service. The Complainant having regard to these facts is entitled for the sum of Rs. 74,141/- which he had spent for purchasing the materials and labour charges paid by him. The last bill for painting paid is on 30.9.1992.

The Complainant has further sought a sum of Rs. 59,960/-, excess amount paid by him to the Opp. Party, the Builder.

IN our opinion the Complainant is not entitled for this amount of Rs. 59,960/- as he had agreed as per Ex. C.1 to make the payment of the balance amount of Rs. 84,057/- that was payable by Mr. Kalro to the Opp. Party. This fact is evident under Clause (3.1) of Ex. C.1 and Ex. C.3. The Complainant has further sought Electricity arrears paid and liability of payment of electric rate difference and penalty and also the rentals paid by him for the delayed completion of the work by the Opp. Party.

THE Complainant has not produced any satisfactory material to grant this relief to him. So the Complainant is not entitled for the amounts sought for by him on these counts. The Complainant also sought a sum of Rs. 46,696/- towards interest and also a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards mental agony suffered by him and his family members. In our opinion, the Complainant has failed to place any material on record to award any compensation on these counts as well. So we are unable to award any compensation on these counts.

THE Complainant has also sought a direction to the Opp. Party to execute a sale deed in favour of the Complainant and also to allot car shed No. 9 as agreed under the agreement.

IN our opinion, the Complainant is entitled to these reliefs, as it is evident under Ex. C.2 that he was allotted car shed No. 9 and also the transfer of rights in the said property in favour of the Complainant at the cost of the Complainant. In the result, therefore, this Complaint is allowed. The Opp. Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 74,141/- to the Complainant with interest thereon at 12% per annum from 1st of October, 1992 till the date of its payment.

The Opp. Party is directed to allot and make available Car Shed No. 9 to the Complainant.

IT is also directed that the Opp. Party shall transfer the rights in the said property in favour of the Complainant at the cost of the Complainant. The Opp. Party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as costs of this proceeding. The Opp. Party shall pay the sum so awarded to the Complainant within a period of 60 days from this day. Complaint allowed.