M.JANAKI Vs. VIJAYA SRI CONSTRUCTIONS
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-8-1
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on August 07,2003

M.JANAKI Appellant
VERSUS
VIJAYA SRI CONSTRUCTIONS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) C .D. No. 21 of 1999 : Mr. Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President ''The complainants are owners of 806.94 sq. yards comprising of Plot Nos. 326/HIG and 327/HIG situated at Kukatpally Housing Board Colony, Ranga Reddy District. They entered into an agreement with the opposite party builder who accordingly agreed to construct a residential complex called ╦ťGandhi Towers and deliver 28% of the constructed area to the complainants within a period of 19 months from the date of execution of the agreement and in case of failure to complete the construction within the said period, he would pay the rent during that period. Though the complainants waited for a sufficiently long period after expiry of 19 months, construction of the complex was not completed by the opposite party. Hence the complainants issued a legal notice dated 7.2.1997 and filed this complaint claiming in all a sum of Rs. 8,77,500/ - towards damages.
(2.) IN the counter filed by the opposite party while denying the material allegations, it is stated that as per the Development Agreement, the complainants have not fulfilled their part of the agreement and they have not come forward for ear -marking their flats. They have also got additional works done like shelves, Manjira water connection and car parking and unless these amounts are paid they do not get any right over the said property. The complainants have not given registered G.P.A. in his name but given only an unregistered G.P.A. The complainants are illegally enjoying the electricity and maintenance without payment. There is no relationship of vendor and vendee inasmuch as the complainants are land owners. The opposite partys wife Smt. Naga Kumari has filed O.S. No. 443/1999 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, South and West, Ranga Reddy District and the same is pending. Hence the complaint is not maintainable.
(3.) THE complainants filed the affidavit of the second complainant and marked Exs. A -1 to A -3. The opposite party through its Managing Partner filed the affidavit evidence but no documents are marked. The point, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if so, to what relief ?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.