Tribunals and Commissions

V.P.BALASUBRAMANIAM vs SRI JAIANJANEYA ASSOCIATES

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 6 January 1999 · Citation: 1999 1 CPJ 652

HON’BLE JUDGES
E.J.Bellie , Pulavar V.S.Kandasamy , Angel Arulraj J.
RESULT
Complaint allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 773 words
1.

THE 1st opposite party is a Promoter and Developer of flats and the 2nd opposite party is her power agent. THE complainant entered into an agreement of sale with the opposite parties on 7.2.1996 for purchase of 1/6th of undivided share of their land and construction of a residential flat of an extent of 700 sq. ft. over the same. THE opposite parties received a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- towards the major portion of the-sale consideration. THEy ought to have delivered possession of the flat on 31.8.1996 but they failed to do so in spite of several demands. THE complainant issued a legal notice dated 24.3.1997 calling upon the opposite parties either to deliver the flat or to refund the said amount of Rs. 5,50,000/ - with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from 1.9.1996. To that the opposite parties have sent an evasive reply. For mental agony suffered by the complainants they are entitled to compensation. On these pleadings the complaint has been filed for reliefs.

2.

IN the written version the opposite parties contended that the complainants failed to make payments as per the terms in the agreement, and therefore the delay occurred in the construction and the cost of price also escalated. The complainants were informed about the escalated costs. The complainants had undertaken to pay this escalated cost if it exceeds more than 10% of the original cost. The opposite parties have completed 95% of the construction and the flats are ready for occupation except for the few minor works to be done. The complainants have been avoiding payments of the balance amount due from them and also the escalated cost. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any interest to the complainants as claimed by them. No period of delivery was mentioned in the agreement, and the complainants made an insertion in the agreement regarding this. Regarding the registration of the undivided share in the land, the complainants have not come forward to purchase stamp values. Therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainants as compensation, The point that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so what reliefs can be granted to the complainants.

It is not in dispute that the complainants have paid to the opposite party a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ -. In the agreement nothing is mentioned as to before or on what date the payment or payments shall be made. According to the complainants the opposite parties shall deliver the flat on or before 31.8.1996. In the agreement no date is mentioned but it is stated that it must be delivered before August, 1996. Presumably what the complainants says that the date is 31st August must be true. The opposite parties would contend that the month and year has been inserted in the agreement unilaterally by the complainant but regarding this there is no evidence and nothing is there to show what the opposite party say is probable. Therefore it may be safely held that the opposite parties should have delivered the possession of the flat on or before 31.8.1996, but they failed to do so. In the agreement it is stated to the effect that if the opposite parties failed to do so they will be liable to refund the amount received by them without interest. From this obviously, if the entire amount is repaid by the opposite party immediately after 31st August, 1996 or within a reasonable time therefrom they could pay the amount without interest but the fact is that not a single rupee had been paid by the opposite parties till the date of filing of the complaint on. 8.5.1997 and even thereafter until today. Certainly the complainant shall be compensated for the failure of the opposite party to refund the amount immediately or within reasonable time. Thus considering, we are of the view that interest shall be ordered to be paid. In a similar case in O.P. No. 102/1997 the opposite party had written a letter to the complainant that he would pay interest @ 24% p.a. from 1.9.1996.

3.

WE, therefore order the opposite party to pay alongwith the principal amount of Rs. 5,50,000/-, interest @ 24% p.a. from 1.9.1996 till date of payment. WE also order the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as costs of this proceeding to the complainants. WE further order that the opposite parties shall pay the said amounts within 3 months from today. Complaint allowed.