Decided on October 12,2004



B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J. - (1.) THE petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ and quash the order of the 1st respondent in C.D.LA. No. 1392 of 2003(wrongly described as C.D.LA. No. 1939 of2001) in C.D. No. 74 of 1999, dated 07 -11 -2003.
(2.) IN order to consider as to whether the impugned order passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(for short ˜the Commission) suffers from any errors apparent on the face of the record requiring our interference in exercise of our Certiorari jurisdiction, few relevant ¢ facts leading to filing of this writ petition may have to be noticed.
(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 and 3 herein have filed a complaint in C.D. No. 74 of 1999 before the 1st respondent -Commission under Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short the Act) against the petitioner with a prayer to direct the petitioner to complete the construction of Flat Nos. C -9, C -10, C -11 and C -12 respectively in the fourth floor of 'Eureka Court Apartments' in Survey No. 14, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, as per the specifications and deliver the same; to pay compensation at Rs. 30,000/ - per month from 31 -03 -1999 till the date of handing over possession of the flats to get approval from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under BRS Scheme and to provide lift, car parking area in the cellar etc. The case of the respondents/ complainants before the Commission was that the petitioner is a builder of the building complex by name Eureka Court Apartments  and it has sold Flat Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 relating to undivided interest in the land and further entered into an agreement for construction of the apartments with description as Flat Nos. C -9, C -10, C -11 and C -12 in the fourth floor and the Petitioner had defaulted in construction of the apartments and the same has constituted a deficiency in service since the petitioner has failed to complete the construction and handover the flats to the respondents/complainants. Petitioner has contested the said complaint on various grounds and it is unnecessary to notice the details of the grounds on which the petitioner resisted the complaint filed by the respondents/ complainants. The Commission vide its final order, dated 19 -6 -2003, partly allowed the said complaint. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: - .........It is the duty of the opposite party to obtain proper sanction and complete the construction before he could seek for payment as per the terms of the agreement. As he failed to obtain permission from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad he cannot convey the flats constructed unauthorisedly. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on his part in failing to convey the flats constructed as against approved plan as such the opposite party is bound to refund the amount already collected together with damages since the opposite party alone has failed to perform his part of contract. The mere fact that the opposite party applied for regularisation of unauthorized construction des not absolve him of his responsibility of handing over the constructed flats under approved plan. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The Commissioner who was appointed by this Commission filed his report dt. 30 -7 -2001 pointing out several incomplete works and defects. Hence accepting the report of the Commissioner we direct the opposite party to complete the works as pointed out in the report after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and deliver possession of the flats in question within a period of three months from to -day. Regarding compensation, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to each of the complainants would meet the ends of justice in view of the delay in handing over the possession of the flats for the reason that the very construction is unauthorized and the opposite party failed to obtain necessary permission. This amount shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The next question is what is the compensation alternatively the complainants are entitled to in case of default in handing over possession within the time granted above? The first complainant admittedly paid Rs. 2,82,000/ - under Ex. A -6 agreement and the second complainant paid Rs. 2,74,000/ - under Ex. A -7 agreement besides that the complainants paid a sum of Rs. 4,86,250/ - on 19 -12 -1998. The complainants also purchased the undivided share of land for Rs. 68,000/ - and Rs. 76,000/ - respectively under Exs. A -9 and A -II. These payments come to Rs. 11,86,250/ -. Therefore there shal1 be a direction to refund the said amount with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of their respective payments till realization. The learned counsel for the complainants submits that as per the terms of the agreements in case of delay beyond 31 -3 -1999 the opposite party agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - per month to both the complainants put together. Strictly speaking as the opposite party failed to honour the terms of the agreements he has to pay the said sum as promised. However having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh by way of compensation to each of the complainants would meet the ends of justice, which shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part to the extent indicated above with costs of Rs. 10,000/ -. Time for payment six weeks. ;

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