K.SANDHYA RANI Vs. BHAVANAM ESTATES PVT.LTD.
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Bhavanam Estates Pvt.Ltd.
Click here to view full judgement.
P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT -
(1.) THE first opposite
party is the construction company of which opposite parties 2 and 3 are
the Director and Managing Director respectively. They offered to
construct a flat for the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant
entered into an agreement for sale in respect of 52.90 square yards
undivided share of land out of 1260 square yards from the owners on
18.3.1991. On the same day, a separate agreement was executed by the first opposite party agreeing to construct a flat of 1280 square feet
inclusive of common areas on the fourth floor of Bhavanam Mansion,
Navodaya Colony, Yellareddiguda, Hyderabad. The complainant agreed to
purchase the same at a total cost of Rs. 2,56,000/ - and paid a sum of Rs.2,35,000/ - by instalments. Though, opposite parties promised to complete the construction within eighteen months, the same was not done as they
failed to obtain permission from the Municipal Corporation. Of course,
the complainant by a supplementary agreement dated 9.6.1993 extended the
period of completion of flat by another six months from 9.6.1993. As
there was no progress, she issued a registered notice on 19.5.1997 for
which there was no response. As there was no necessary permission from
the Municipal Corporation, the complainant has realised that the opposite
parties have adopted unfair trade practice by inducing her to enter into
this transaction. Hence, she filed the complaint claiming refund of the
amount paid together with damages sustained by her as well as for mental
(2.) The opposite parties 1 and 3 in their written version, while admitting the execution of the agreements mentioned above, stated that
the opposite party No. 1 merely undertook to make the construction of
flats as a contractor. The owners also requested opposite party No. 1 to
obtain necessary permission and construct 28 flats. They also agreed that
if at all Municipal permission is not obtained, they would seek
relaxation of the excess construct area from the Government of Andhra
Pradesh. Due to the efforts made by the first opposite party, the
Government by their memo dated 22.2.1992 and letter dated 21.9.1992
directed the owners to submit the particulars, but the owners failed to
do so. Therefore, there is no deficiency on their part.
The second opposite party filed a separate written version opposite party contractor earlier for construction of a building in Ranibagh, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad and thus had acquaintance with him. The third opposite party with that acquaintance included the name of the second opposite party, started a Private Limited Company and registered it in the name of M/s. Bhavanam Estates (P) Ltd. His name was included without his knowledge and he has been totally unware of the activities of the said building construction, acquisition of land, entering into contracts with purchasers, etc., and hence, he is not responsible for any deficiency in service.
The complainant besides filing her affidavit, filed Exs. A -1 to A -64.
(3.) THE opposite parties filed the counter affidavit of the second opposite party. No documents are filed.
The only point that arises for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if
so to what extent ?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.