R.J.DARUKHANAWALA vs MANJITH SINGH, REPRESENTATIVE OF MAN JOG BUILDERS

THIS original complaint has been filed by Wing Comd. RJ. Darukhanawala against Shri Manjit Singh representative of M/s. Man Jog Builders. According to the complainant, he entered into an agreement with the opposite party in December, 1987 for the purchase of a site measuring 2400 square feet bearing No. 67 and 68 and to construct a house thereon by the opposite party measuring 1060 sq.ft. at the cost of Rs. 2,20,000 situated at Laxmipura Layout, Laxmipura Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluka, Karnataka. According to the agreement, the opposite party had agreed to construct house and to hand over possession of the same to the complainant within 12 months from the date of the agreement. The complainant paid Rs. 2,20,000/- in terms of the agreement. However, inspite of the complainant''s continuous and repeated contacts and communications the opposite party did not deliver possession of the house. In fact, the said project did not come into existence. On 25th January, 1991 the opposite party wrote a letter to the complainant offering alternative accommodation. A meeting was held on 25th October, 1991 between the complainant and the opposite party in which the latter agreed to hand over one apartment at Kormangala situated at Banglore at the rate of Rs. 600/- per sq.ft. and also agreed to adjust the total amount in the cost of the apartment. Later on the complainant learnt that the offer given by the opposite party to provide an apartment on second floor at Kormangala was not sanctioned by the Bangalore Development Authority. On 2nd April, 1992 the opposite party issued letter to the complainant stating that the sanction of the additional floor by the concerned authorities in the Alpine Court Project at Kormangala was expected and he will revert back later on. The complainant made several verbal telephonic communications and visits between 2nd April, 1992 till 9th April, 1993 requesting the opposite party to expedite the construction work. On 8th May, 1993, the opposite party wrote a letter to the complainant requesting him to meet the opposite party but giving an appropriate details. From 8th May, 1993 to 5th September, 1993 the complainant made several oral communications. The opposite party asked the complainant to meet them without giving any clarification. The complainant feels that there will be no end to this delaying tactics and rude behaviour of the opposite party. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint. The complainant prayed for issuing direction to the opposite party to hand over peaceful possession of the premises as agreed in the agreement dated 7th December, 1987 or hand over an alternate accommodation in the same vicinity. The complainant further prays for issuing direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 47 lakhs the details of which have been given in the prayer clause.

THE opposite party contested the complaint. Their case is that the complainant had entered into the agreement in December, 1987 after detailed investigations and after receiving all the documents. No fact was hidden from the complainant. Even in the agreement it was mentioned that the builder has applied to the Urban Development Authority for exemption of the land from the purview of Urban Land Ceiling and for permission to transfer the said land in favour of the builders and intending members of the builders. Due to the delay in permission the project got delayed. The complainant vide his letter dated 4th February, 1989 cancelled the said agreement and demanded back his money. Once the complainant had cancelled the agreement and demanded the refund of the amount he had lost his right over the said property. Vide letter dated 25th January, 1991 the opposite party had told the complainant that if he wanted to settle his account in view of his agreement having been cancelled the opposite party can offer other property or his money back in instalments. Thereafter the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party the minutes of which were signed by both the parties on 25th October, 1991. As per the said minutes it was agreed that the complainant shall take an apartment and only the principal amount shall be adjusted and for the balance amount of interest the complainant will be eligible only to purchase other properties that are available with the opposite party. The opposite party informed the complainant that in the project being offered by it, he will be able to get an allotment of an apartment in third floor and at present the sanction received by the opposite party is only for two floors and therefore, the complainant will have to wait till the sanction is received for the third floor and then an agreement can be entered into to which the complainant and his Advocate agreed and later on it was confirmed by the complainant himself by his letter dated 22nd December, 1991. The opposite party received sanction for the apartments in August 1992. The opposite party wrote seven letters, last of which was written on 21st June, 1993, to the complainant to finalise and close the transaction but the complainant did not respond. The complainant has thus lost his right if any, as he has committed default. It was further pleaded by the opposite party that the entire amount as claimed by the complainant was not paid to the opposite party. Only partly it was paid to the opposite party and partly the Manjog Consultancy Services. The High Court in Company Petition No. 56 of 1989 winded up the Manjog Consultancy Services and appointed an Official Liquidator and hence this Commission has no further jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.

WE have heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned Counsel for the opposite party and gone though the records of the case. As noticed above the opposite party does not dispute most of the facts narrated by the complainant. The only argument vehemently advanced on behalf of the opposite party is that the complaint is time barred as the alleged cause of action accrued on 3rd September, 1987 when the complainant had made the payment and in December, 1987 when the agreement was entered into and in any case on 4th February, 1989 when the complainant cancelled the agreement and demanded back his money while the present complaint was filed on 17th January, 1994. We are of the opinion that the above argument has no force. Even after the cancellation of the agreement, negotiations were going on between the parties. Even vide letter dated 23rd September, 1992 filed as Annexure-7 with the counter the opposite party asked the complainant to contact them as the plan had been sanctioned and the work was in full swing. That letter was written with reference to the minutes dated 25th October, 1991 contained in Annexure-D filed with the complaint and referred to above while narrating the facts. Even thereafter the opposite party had been writing letters to the complainant offering another apartment and to contact them (i.e. opposite party) to settle the matter. The last letter is said to have been written by the opposite party on 21st June, 1993. In such circumstances, when the opposite party was promising to give alternative apartment up to June, 1993, the complaint cannot be said to be time barred.

IT was also half heartedly argued that part of the consideration was paid to Manjot Consultancy Services which has gone into liquidation and an Official Liquidator has been appointed and the case cannot proceed. The complainant had entered into agreement with the opposite party and that fact is not in dispute. It is a different matter under what name the opposite party issued the receipt. The opposite party does not dispute about the receipt of consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/-. Hence the complainant can proceed against the opposite party. The opposite party is clearly guilty of deficiency of service. The opposite party went on promising to give to the complainant some apartment but even after a lapse of so many years no flat/appartment has been given to him by the opposite party. The complainant in such circumstances is entitled to compensation for the deficiency in the service committed by the opposite party which we assess at Rs. 30,000/ as at present the complainant cannot get a house at the price agreed upon due to the hike in prices. The complainant has paid Rs. 2,20,000/- to the opposite party. In view of the above we direct that the opposite party shall pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant. The complainant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% on the amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- from the date of deposit and on the amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the date of this order at the above rate till total amount is paid to the complainant. The above amounts to be paid within two months of the date of receipt of copy of order. The complainant will also be entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 5,000/-.