M.SURYANARAYANA Vs. SHAKUNTALAMMA
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-1-11
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 31,2003

M.SURYANARAYANA Appellant
VERSUS
SHAKUNTALAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THE case of the complainant is that the first opposite party who is the owner of the premises bearing No. 2 -2 -1167/8/14, situated at Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad admeasuring 650 sq. yards entered into a development agreement with the second opposite party, the builders on 26.8.1992, according to which the second opposite party agreed to construct stilt plus three floors making in all 12 flats with a total constructed area of 10,250 sq. ft. and transfer 40% of the constructed area in favour of the first opposite party. The first opposite party empowered and authorised the second opposite party to enter into agreements with third parties in respect of the remaining share of constructed area.
(2.) THE opposite parties 3 and 4 are partners of second opposite party. The fourth opposite party approached the complainant to purchase flats under construction. Accordingly the complainant agreed to purchase flat No. 304A on 1.5.1993. The total consideration payable for the flat is Rs. 3,11,500/ -. Though the complainant has paid the total consideration, the opposite parties did not complete the construction nor delivered possession of the flat. Hence the complainant seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to complete the construction and hand over possession of the flat to him by executing a registered sale deed for the undivided share of land and also to pay an amount of Rs. 18,000/ - p.a. till delivery of possession, to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for the inconvenience caused due to delay or in the alternative to return the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs paid with interest at quarterly rests at 20%, award compensation of Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony, and Rs. 50,000/ - towards loss of rent.
(3.) IN the written version filed by the first opposite party while admitting the agreement dated 26.8.1992 stated that the second opposite party has to deliver possession of her share of land within 12 months to her from the date of taking vacant possession of the property. However, the second opposite party paid only a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on signing the agreement and committed breach by not paying the balance of Rs. 2 lakhs within the stipulated period and in case of failure the first opposite party will be constrained to cancel the agreement. As second opposite party committed default of the terms of the agreement dated 26.8.1992, she cancelled the said agreement by its letter dated 5.4.1995. Thereafter the first opposite party herself completed the construction of 7 flats which were assessed by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In O.S. No. 1645/1997 on the file of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, it was found that the second opposite party is the actual defaulter, whereupon the second opposite party preferred C.M.A. No. 184/1997 and also sought for temporary injunction in I.A. No. 297/1997 which was rejected.;


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