K.SANDHYA RANI Vs. BHAVANAM ESTATES PVT.LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(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 agony.

(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.

(3.) THE opposite parties filed the counter affidavit of the second opposite party. No documents are filed.