P.J. Joseph vs Aratukulam

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 206/2011 - P.J. Joseph Vs. M/s. Aratukulam & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner entered into an agreement with OP/Respondent-builder for purchase of a flat and paid a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/-. As per agreement, OP was to give possession of the flat within 24 months '' time i.e. before 31.7.2007 and as there was delay in delivering the possession, complainant suffered loss of Rs.15,000/- per month and claimed Rs.5,10,000/- from the OP. It was further submitted that complainant is ready to pay balance amount of Rs.1,60,000/-, but OP has not come forward to get the sale deed registered and in such circumstances, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and admitted that possession was to be delivered to the complainant within 24 months, but complainant did not pay amount of sale consideration as per time schedule mentioned in the agreement and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there was delay in handing over possession of the flat, petitioner was entitled to receive compensation, but learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of District Forum order reveals that petitioner was to make payment as per time schedule mentioned in the agreement, but petitioner has not filed proof of payment of amount as per time schedule when petitioner himself has committed default in making payment as per time schedule, respondent was not under an obligation to handover possession within the stipulated period and in such circumstances, petitioner was rightly held not entitled to get compensation @ 15,000/- per month on account of late delivery of possession. Learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission has not committed error in dismissing appeal. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.