Sousa And Sons Realty Constructors And Developers vs Sandur Udyog Pvt Ltd

THIS First Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 13.7.94 passed by Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No. 12/93.

THE Complaint as gathered from the record is regarding the deficiency of service in construction and handing over possession of a residential flat. The opposite party (appellant herein) who is a builder, promoter and developer agreed by an agreement dated 21.12.89 to place the complainant in possession of a flat by 1.6.90 for a consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/ - and in case of failure to give possession by 1.8.90, the former was to pay to the complainant damages at Rs. 500/ - per day. However, the opposite parties failed to give the possession as agreed upon and the complainant sent a legal notice on 11.1.93 claiming the possession of the flat and damages from the opposite parties; when there was no compliance, he filed a complaint before the State Commission in March, 1993 claiming, (i) an amount of Rs. 4,80,000/ - at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per day towards compensation, (ii) an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ - as solatium due to delay in delivery of the flat, and (iii) possession of the flat.sss The opposite parties main contention was that since the complainant made various suggestions regarding floor tiles to be used, shifting of servants bath room to the garage and the kitchen platform to be of black polished granite, the construction could not be completed in time. The State Commission requested the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department (PWD) Panaji to inspect and report to the Com - mission on the progress of the construction of the flat. The report prepared by the Superintending Engineer, PWD in September, 93 showed that there were may shortcomings. The Commission observed that the complainant made suggestions for certain alterations on 6.11.90 which was well after the stipulated date of handing over possession and that therefore this cannot absolve the opposite parties from their liability to complete the work as per agreed terms and conditions. The Commission also rejected the contention of the opposite parties that the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum as it pertained to immovable property and cited the law that if property is not delivered within the stipulated period, the delay so caused is denial of service and that such a dispute is not in respect of immovable property. Having regard to the fact that in the instant case, the possession had been given to the complainant on 29.1.94 because of the complaint filed before them, the Commission held that there has been colossal negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as a result of which the complainant was deprived of his legitimate claim of entry into possession of his flat. The Commission, therefore, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally to the complainant, (i) interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the total consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/ - from 1.6.90 till 29.1.94 when the possession was delivered, (ii) Rs. 5,000/ - towards compensation, (iii) Rs. 1,000/ - towards costs of the complaint within a period of 30 days of the receipt of their order railing which the said amounts of Rs. 6,000/ - shall carry interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum till realisation. As for the shortcomings pointed out by the Commissioner who inspected the flat, the State Commission felt that the complainant shall carry out the incomplete work at his own expense strictly in accordance with the specifications and drawings in terms of the agreement and claim the amount required to complete these defects by filing a separate complaint.

IN the appeal before us, the appellant has pointed out that the delay was attributable to the complainant -respondent inasmuch as he had sought for certain additions/alterations and had also agreed to supply marble, granite etc. to the appellant which the complainant did only in December, 90 - November, 91. The complainant -respondent in his version has denied that there was any delay on his part in this regard and has further pointed out that his suggestions had no relation at all to the incomplete items of work.

WE have heard the submissions of the Counsel on both sides and carefully gone through the records. We agree with the findings of the State Commission that there has been inordinate delay of years in the delivery of the flat to the respondent -complainant. Possession was given only, after the complaint was filed. We find no merit in this appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and confirm the order of the State Commission. There is no order as regards costs. Appeal dismissed.