Decided on February 14,2003

S.KRISHNA Appellant
S.MALLA REDDY Respondents


P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J. - (1.) THE complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the opposite party for purchase of Flat No. C7 in second floor admeasuring 987 sq. ft. including 213 sq. ft. of common area together with undivided share of 22 sq. yards of land on 15.7.1996 for a consideration of Rs. 2,65,000/ - and paid the entire consideration including registration charges of Rs. 35,000/ -. Though the opposite party promised to hand over the finished flat in the second floor with all amenities including lift, marble flooring, separate electrical transformer, 3 phase power supply, etc., in November, 1996 itself, but failed to hand over the same and started demanding escalation charges. However, instead of entering into a quarrel and litigation with the opposite party the complainant agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs.
(2.) ,45,000/ - towards marble stone, teakwood in bed room and wardrobe, kitchen and sliding shutters to cover the loft with plywood, and granite kitchen platform as well as drinking water. Even then the opposite party provided only country wood and the windows without panes. Windows and doors are left without bolts, hinges etc. Though it is promised plastering of the wall with cement and sponge finish, the opposite party plastered the walls with lime. The opposite party similarly provided mosaic flooring of different shades and uneven finishing and some places were left without flooring and sanitary fittings are broken. Even the municipal water though promised is not provided. Lift and transformer though promised not provided. Though sale deed was executed but it was without the knowledge of the complainant and without giving him an opportunity to check the building. Hence this complaint is filed claiming a sum of Rs. 4,75,000/ - received by the opposite party, as well as Rs. 35,000/ - towards registration charges and damages of Rs. 5 lakhs. 2. In the written version filed by the opposite party he denied the execution of the agreement including provision for lift, marble flooring, electrical transformer, etc. It is further stated that he is the owner of 444 sq. yards plot in Sy. Nos. 152 to 154 of Thokatta Village and after obtaining necessary permission he proposed to construct flats named as œM.R. Towers . The complainant showed interest to purchase Flat No. C -7 in second floor comprising of 774 sq. ft. with 213 sq. ft. common area and accordingly an agreement was entered into on 15.7.1996. The complainant agreed to pay the balance and get the registration done. The complainant paid the balance only on 13.3.1997 and got the sale deed registered on that date. The brochure issued by the opposite party clearly spells out the material to be used and the facilities to be provided. There is no promise to provide lift either in the brochure, agreement of sale or in the sale deed. It is clearly stated that flooring will be with white mosaic and skirting. Regarding separate electrical transformer an amount of Rs. 22,940/ - was deposited with APSEB on 6.2.1998 being the 10 per cent of the estimated value and the opposite party installed the transformer incurring huge expenditure of Rs. 2,65,000/ - and the complainant is drawing supply from the transformer. Though 3 phase supply was provided the complainant got fixed single phase meter to his flat. If he wants, he can switch over to 3 phase power supply. The allegation in para 3 of the complaint that with a view to avoid quarrel, the complainant agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 2,45,000/ - for certain works are false. There is no such agreement. The complainant agreed to purchase the flat for a sale consideration of Rs.
(3.) ,75,280/ - and Rs. 35,000/ - was required for stamp duty and registration and he paid the said amount only. Even the receipts filed by the complainant disclose that the amounts were paid for providing flooring with marble stones, wood work with teakwood and plywood, for providing granite for kitchen platform and municipal water for drinking. As per the promise a bore -well was dug. All other allegations that wood work was not done, window panes not provided, bolts and hinges not fixed to the door, etc., are not correct. There is no agreement to provide municipal water for drinking but he promised to supply water through overhead tank. As promised a sump was provided for storing municipal water. The purchasers have to apply for water connection in their names. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. 3. The complainant besides filing his affidavit filed Exs. A -1 to A -6A. The opposite party filed Exs. B -1 to B -3 besides filing his counter affidavit and also through third party. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.;

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